Talk:Anthroposophy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Spritual science redirect

After two other editors agreed, I redirected spiritual science to this article. --ScienceApologist 18:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sven Ove Hansson as pseudoscientific author

Lumos3, you have introduced a reference to an article by Sven Ove Hansson from 1991 at the beginning of the article as seeming "proof" that anthroposophy is not a science. As you know since long, the article by Hansson is an especially bad exemple of pseudoscientific writing and argumentation, as documented by this. If you want to cite a "proof" for your view, you need to find some other citation, otherwise your insertion lacks standing. Thebee 22:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait... you believe your COMMENTS by Sune Nordwall page (i.e. original research by YOU) has any business refuting ANYTHING here? Boy, talk about lacking standing... The citation by Professor Hansson is absolutly appropriate here - YOUR original research is not. Pete K 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the citation to Sven Ove Hansson's 1991 article but without the link to Waldorf critics. The citation is absolutely of the right kind for Wikipedia and its the right place to put it. I would like to link to the full copy of the article held on the Waldorf critics site. The article is quoted in full there without any editorial from the host. I cannot see why this is objectional. I will restore the link to the full text when I've heard responces here. Lumos3 11:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to a trial transcript made available on WaldorfAnswers were deleted because of editor's problems with the hosting site. Similar problems exist with the critics' site. We need to find common rules that apply to both sides here, so long as there are sides lined up the way they are. Hgilbert 00:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

thebee i cannot believe that you are still playing the same tricks, why don't you at least point out when you quote yourself.

- i think there should not be any doubt whether the scientific community (i.e. the majority of scientists) considers anthroposophy a science or not. unfortunately not many scientist consider it necessary to point that out. on the other hand one can probably find scientist to quote that are open for certain aspects of anthroposophy. could we not as a compromise try to do it without the label pseudoscience and instead point out that anthroposophy does not comply with basic scientific standards (f.e. reproducibility of results) and that many of steiner's findings are in conflict with modern science (geology, evolution). i know if noone has said this in a published text it's like original research. on the other hand for a strong statement as 'many scientists/ the scientific community regards it a pseudoscience', i would like to see more references. if it is true it should not be too hard to find them trueblood 14:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood, I think you've touched on the issue here - "unfortunately not many scientist consider it necessary to point that out." - there is, indeed, no reason for scientists to refute Anthroposophy as science. How many scientists make the effort to write a paper refuting the scientific merits of voodoo? And voodoo doesn't have a lobby of people who are willing to defame anyone who says anything against it (like Anthroposophy does). Why would any scientist find it necessary to point out that, no, the brain is not essentially like the intestines (as Steiner suggested - Elephants to Einstein p.146)? So yes, I suggest it WILL be hard to find scientists who have taken more than a glance at Steiner. Where would one start in refuting this? And then, would one be faced with the challenge of Anthroposophists claiming they haven't done "the work" and therefore cannot know what Steiner meant when he said the brain was excrement. What scientists would be interested in opening *that* can of worms? This is the kind of thing skeptics are good at, and are willing to endure. Scientists, generally speaking, don't have any reason to refute Steiner's work - it really refutes itself. Pete K 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether anthroposophy is in consonance with a serious scientific strife or not is not possible to determine on the basis of Hansson's article. A closer look at it from the perspective of the Philosophy of Science points to that it is. The article by Hansson was published, when he (probably) still was PhD student in 1991, nine years after he had been one of the main founders of the ideological sceptical anti-New age organisation "Association Science and Education of the People", and its chair person (probably) since then. His bias is shown by the way he distorts the argumentation in the source he refers to, and the way he does not take into account the difference between theosophy, and anthroposophy as developed by Steiner, separate from theosophy. As such, his article constitutes a prime example of pseudoscience in the basic sense of trying to stand out as scientific, while seriously misrepresenting the published original sources is refers to as basis. Wikipedia should strive to be serious, and use serious sources for what it publishes. The article by Hansson is not a serious source. Thebee 11:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

HGilbert wrote:"Links to a trial transcript made available on WaldorfAnswers were deleted because of editor's problems with the hosting site. Similar problems exist with the critics' site. We need to find common rules that apply to both sides here, so long as there are sides lined up the way they are." No, I don't think WaldorfAnswers is comparable to WaldorfCritics which is not a single-opinion site. TheBee single-handedly positioned his websites as a defamatory sites and this disqualifies them. I will, however, support warehousing the material at a neutral site.

TheBee wrote: "The article by Hansson is not a serious source." and once again, you link to your own original research websites - Thank goodness we don't rely on YOU to determine what constitutes a "serious source" for Wikipedia. The Dutch Commission is not a serious source in my view (and probably the view of any objective reader) but you guys don't seem to want to see this. Please don't waste everyone's time trying to deflate critical viewpoints. The Hansson source is not only qualified, but the list of his credentials you have provided above are impressive to say the least. Pete K 15:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"many scientists"

That anthroposophy is contested as a science is clear, since a professor of philosophy does so contest it. A professor of philosophy is a little different than many scientists. In any case, Hansson is cited later in the article.

After the many arguments by various editors, especially Pete K, that websites that have original research or are otherwise not up to Wikipedia verification standards should be excluded from citability - aimed at Waldorf Answers, etc. - it is once again remarkable that a website not meeting these standards should be included here. We are back to the old discussion: either Waldorf Answers and similar sites are suitable for citation (to pages on these sites that are not original research), and then the critics site is, too; or else neither should be cited. Let's stick to one set of objective standards for all. Hgilbert 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, let's not. Waldorf Answers is intended to be defamatory. It was created for the purpose of defamation of those critical of Waldorf. It is the work of a single author. There is no other site referenced here that fits those criteria with the exception of other sites by the same author. Pete K 02:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On

"Waldorf Answers is intended to be defamatory."

You're probably referring to your view of the section at American4Waldorf.org, informing the public about PLANS. As for P. Staudenmaier, that you have added as citation in the article, as "source" on anything related to anthroposophy, in spite of all earlier discussions about the lack of qualification regarding the WC-site as citable source here at Wikipedia, as pointed out by Hgilbert, see On the Stories by P Staudenmaier.

As for the two (not one) authors behind Waldorf Answers, they're described at the site.

PeteK suggests not applying standard Wikipedia criteria regarding sources for material in articles. You sure advocating NOT applying standard Wikipedia criteria is a good thing to do?

Thebee 11:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, BTW, for cleaning up WaldorfAnswers a bit during this arbitration and investigation. PLANS, as you yourself pointed out in the article, has a membership of 44 people, not two or five. The PLANS website could hardly be compared to the original research diatribes of a single editor. Anyone comparing the two sites will notice the difference. Pete K 15:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On:

"thanks, BTW, for cleaning up WaldorfAnswers a bit during this arbitration and investigation."

I checked the latest dates of the files uploaded to the Waldorf Answers site. The latest new date of a file was 21 Oct. The arbitration started one month later. What do you refer to?

On:

"as you yourself pointed out in the article, has a membership of 44 people"

In one editing effort of the article on PLANS, I told that the group, according to its bylaws is a corporation that shall have no members. That was deleted by someone. The "44" people, in the article described as "members", were the number of people, that according to the secretary of the group had paid at least 15$ as gifts to the group for 2000 at the end of the year. After that, I have seen no updated figure on the number of donors of the 15$. Mid 1997, I think it had received 55$ so far during the year, as far as I remember.

At present, its board, being its only proper "members" with any influence, according to the article on WC, numbers seven people, two more than Americans for Waldorf Education.

On:

"The PLANS website could hardly be compared to the original research diatribes of a single editor."

Waldorf Answers has two editors, not one. AWSNA, the Association of Waldorf Schools in North America, the central organisation for appr. 170 Waldorf Schools in North America recommends it at its site (third from top at the page of 16 recommended sites) as

"A site dedicated to providing in depth answers about Waldorf education for parents and prospective parents. This site also serves to clear up some of the misconceptions that may exist about Waldorf education."

It points to that the view of Waldorf Answers as a "diatribe" probably lies in the eye of the beholder (you). You have never at any time substantiated your "description" three months ago here at Wikipedia of the site as a site "replete with defamation and non-verifyable (outright lies) information."

Thebee 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"I checked the latest dates of the files uploaded to the Waldorf Answers site. The latest new date of a file was 21 Oct. The arbitration started one month later. What do you refer to?" OK, so you cleaned up your site during the mediation process (sorry, I don't check your websites daily to see which nonsense is being added or deleted on a daily basis). My mistake. The fact remains, you recently altered your WaldorfAnswers website considerably when it became a point of criticism during these proceedings. This alteration of the evidence might not seem dishonest to you.

"The "44" people, in the article described as "members", were the number of people, that according to the secretary of the group had paid at least 15$ as gifts to the group for 2000 at the end of the year." So you are now admitting you dishonestly inflated the number yourself, right? Obviously, an article about a 7-member group wouldn't fly here at Wikipedia and you YOURSELF decided to use a $15 contribution as "membership". With 44 "members", the article wouldn't qualify for swift deletion and you could continue your defamation campaign on Wikipedia. Now that this strategy has backfired, you want to come clean.

"Waldorf Answers has two editors, not one." Can you point us to the content that is provided by each editor then?

"AWSNA, the Association of Waldorf Schools in North America, the central organisation for appr. 170 Waldorf Schools in North America recommends it at its site (third from top at the page of 16 recommended sites) as

"A site dedicated to providing in depth answers about Waldorf education for parents and prospective parents. This site also serves to clear up some of the misconceptions that may exist about Waldorf education". All this proves, really, is that AWSNA is as intent about covering up criticism as you are. AWSNA isn't exactly famous for its honesty now, is it? Critics have been trying to get AWSNA to provide accurate information on its FAQ list for years. That your efforts are supported by AWSNA is not surprise.

"You have never at any time substantiated your "description" three months ago here at Wikipedia of the site as a site "replete with defamation and non-verifyable (outright lies) information." And you say this after admitting you altered the site in October? This is a remarkably transparent ploy. I doubt that anyone here at Wikipedia doesn't see through it. For a sample of what used to be on WaldorfAnswers, I believe the clone site AWE still has some of the material that was available on WaldorfAnswers. Everyone should judge for themselves. Pete K 16:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got a couple of minutes to address TheBee's comment above - despite that it has been overhauled since the mediation dispute, there is adequate evidence of blatant lying. This page for example, produces nothing but strawman arguments and "dispels" the myths surrounding them. It creates the "myths" and then makes them look silly while not addressing the underlying issues that are related to each "myth". Here is one of my favorites. First, note how it takes a jab at "small groups of secular humanists" which is what TheBee perceives PLANS to be. But more importantly, it is a blatant lie covering up the truth - which is that Anthroposophy IS taught to students, but not as a specific subject - it is taught in every subject. Notice how the strawman argument is set up by slipping in the words "as content". The complaint is that Waldorf schools teach Anthroposophy, - not "as content" (although there is some Anthroposophical content that slips in to the curriculum) but indirectly as they do with other subjects. Notice part two of the myth "and want to make the pupils into 'anthroposophists'". It sounds pretty ridiculous the way TheBee states it. But in reality, students are bombarded with Anthroposophy from kindergarten (with birthday stories about the rainbow bridge - representing reincarnation and karma) and by high school, the intention is for teachers to legitimize Rudolf Steiner (my own kid had assignments about comparing Steiner's ideas to those of "other prominent" philosophers). The fact that kids are exposed to and immersed in Anthroposophy is absolutely an attempt to open Anthroposophy (something most kids will NEVER hear about) up to them. To suggest that Waldorf schools don't do this is a blatant lie.

Here is another example of a blatant lie, one that is supported by almost all Waldorf teachers who describe Eurythmy in this way. I've written about Eurythmy in the past pointing to Steiner's own descriptions - Rudolf Steiner described it in this way:

"I speak in all humility when I say that within the Anthroposophical Movement there is a firm conviction that a spiritual impulse of this kind must now, at the present time, enter once more into human evolution. And this spiritual impulse must perforce, among its other means of expression, embody itself in a new form of art. It will increasingly be realised that this particular form of art has been given to the world in Eurythmy. It is the task of Anthroposophy to bring a greater depth, a wider vision and a more living spirit into the other forms of art. But the art of Eurythmy could only grow up out of the soul of Anthroposophy; could only receive its inspiration through a purely Anthroposophical conception." From Rudolf Steiner's "Lecture on Eurythmy" August 26, 1923 [1]

So really, Eurythmy is a spiritual lesson in Anthroposophy. One could reasonably ask the question - why is a spiritual (according to Steiner), Anthroposophical activity so heavily entrenched in the Waldorf curriculum that claims not to teach Anthroposophy? TheBee is in the business of covering up the truth if that's what it takes to support Waldorf enterprises.

Here is an interesting answer to the question "Who was Rudolf Steiner". I suppose when a parent asks this question, this response would be adequate to hide Steiner's influence in Waldorf.

There is very little on the site that is objective, or even remotely close to a truthful representation of Waldorf. That's why AWSNA ranks it highly - it's basically a brochure for Waldorf and a place where critics of Waldorf are attacked without AWSNA's fingerprints. It is ALL original research and the term "research" in this case is very loosly applied. No sense in overstating the obvious, the site is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Pete K 17:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

PeteK:

"The fact remains, you recently altered your WaldorfAnswers website considerably when it became a point of criticism during these proceedings. This alteration of the evidence might not seem dishonest to you."

Please tell what you think has changed at the site since August? Thebee 20:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

PeteK:

"you are now admitting you dishonestly inflated the number yourself, right? Obviously, an article about a 7-member group wouldn't fly here at Wikipedia and you YOURSELF decided to use a $15 contribution as "membership". With 44 "members", the article wouldn't qualify for swift deletion and you could continue your defamation campaign on Wikipedia. Now that this strategy has backfired, you want to come clean."

What you write about me telling an untrue story about the number of "members" of PLANS being "44" to prevent an admin from at one time deciding not to delete the page, seven minutes after the secretary of PLANS at one time 23 August 2006 requested this, is a total fantasy.

At one time, 26 Dec 2000, I asked the secretary of the group on his mailing list how many members PLANS had, as I was curious about it. He answered the same day: "Forty-four. Please join. ..." That's the origin of the figure. It is a basic aspect of the group. That was long before I found out that its bylaws state that it is a corporation that shall have no members.

When I contributed to the editing of the article on the group, I added this info on 8 July 2006, writing:

"In 2000, it claimed to have 44 members."

As can be seen from the diff for the edit, I did not write that the group had "44 members". I wrote it claimed it had. Someone else did not like the formulation and later has changed it to "reported".

What I wrote had nothing to do with your fantasy about my intention for adding the info to the article to prevent it from being deleted. That is a false and unfounded accusation, as is your allegation, that the "WaldorfAnswers website [was altered] considerably when it became a point of criticism during these proceedings".

Thebee 00:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"What you write about me telling an untrue story about the number of "members" of PLANS being "44" to prevent an admin from at one time deciding not to delete the page, seven minutes after the secretary of PLANS at one time 23 August 2006 requested this, is a total fantasy." Yes, it is. I didn't say this, you did. Another strawman argument. Pete K 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please tell what part(s) of what I write, that you consider to be a strawman, that does not do your claim justice. Thanks, Thebee 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)