Wikipedia

User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2022/February

< User talk:Tgeorgescu
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Tgeorgescu in topic Buna ziua domnule nontroll

Seriousness

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I had corrected what was inaccurate and erroneous phrasing, I was not trolling. Proletarian Banner (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Steiner

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am confused. I dont think you know what nautrality means, or you are biased in a sense. I was trying to make the discription of Steiner MORE neutral. A lot of people disagree with the idea that Steiner was a pseudoscientist. And no they are not stupid, they have a different epistomology based on a different ontology and a cosmology. As an anthropologist, who has discovered that any claims about a superior knowledge lets say is in fact etnocentric. Do you think for example that it is neutral to write 'voodoo is superstitous' or 'claims about astrology in the Quran are pseudescientific. So by writing it in this manner I was trying to make it more neutral and more user friendly to people who believe differently and have the freedom to do so. It is not a FACT that Steiner was a pseudoscientist. As the word 'science" is multivocal; it means different things to different people in different contexts. But many modern scientist discribe him that way, which is very understandable, but also biased, etnocentric and certainly not neutral. I hope you are able to respond to my argument and overthink this subject. 2001:1C04:3E0B:8300:18E6:EAC9:CA6C:AF81 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I explain you the basic policy of this website, but all arguments against basic policy are simply wasting your own time.
While I am not a scholar, I managed to pass my exams in metaphysics, epistemology, introduction to anthropology, sociology of science, and Western esotericism (which is a non-sectary, academic field taught at one of the top 60 universities of the world).
In other words, I know quite well that you play absolutism upon your own turf and relativism upon public turf. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:[1][2][3][4]

Wikipedia's policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.

So yes, we are biased.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Farley, Tim (25 March 2014). "Wikipedia founder responds to pro-alt-med petition; skeptics cheer". Skeptical Software Tools. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
  2. ^ Hay Newman, Lily (27 March 2014). "Jimmy Wales Gets Real, and Sassy, About Wikipedia's Holistic Healing Coverage". Slate. Archived from the original on 28 March 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
  3. ^ Gorski, David (24 March 2014). "An excellent response to complaints about medical topics on Wikipedia". ScienceBlogs. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
  4. ^ Novella, Steven (25 March 2014). "Standards of Evidence – Wikipedia Edition". NeuroLogica Blog. Archived from the original on 20 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
  5. ^ Talk:Astrology/Archive 13#Bias against astrology
  6. ^ Talk:Alchemy/Archive 2#naturalistic bias in article
  7. ^ Talk:Numerology/Archive 1#There's more work to be done
  8. ^ Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 60#Wikipedia Bias
  9. ^ Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 13#Strong Bias towards Skeptic Researchers
  10. ^ Talk:Energy (esotericism)/Archive 1#Bias
  11. ^ Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 12#Sequence of sections and bias
  12. ^ Talk:Vaccine hesitancy/Archive 5#Clearly a bias attack article
  13. ^ Talk:Magnet therapy/Archive 1#Contradiction and bias
  14. ^ Talk:Crop circle/Archive 9#Bower and Chorley Bias Destroyed by Mathematician
  15. ^ Talk:Laundry ball/Archives/2017
  16. ^ Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 15#Suggestion to Shed Biases
  17. ^ Talk:Torsion field (pseudoscience)/Archive 1#stop f**** supressing science with your bias bull****
  18. ^ Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 3#Biased Article (part 2)
  19. ^ Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 12#Blatant bias on this page
  20. ^ Talk:Flat Earth/Archive 7#Disinformation, the EARTH IS FLAT and this can be SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. This article is not about Flat Earth, it promotes a round earth.
  21. ^ Talk:Scientific racism/Archive 1#THIS is propaganda
  22. ^ Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory/Archive 3#Problems with the article
  23. ^ Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 11#About Santa Claus
  24. ^ Talk:Flood geology/Archive 4#Obvious bias
  25. ^ Talk:Quackery/Archive 1#POV #2
  26. ^ Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 4#Pseudoscience

Neutrality vs Biased

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Fair enough. Wikipedia has the freedom to be biased. But don't claim to be neutral in that case. You cant be neutral and biased at the same time. Prove me wrong. Especially your description of Steiner as being a 'lunatic' seems quite unneutral to me. 2001:1C04:3E0B:8300:18E6:EAC9:CA6C:AF81 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Essays thereupon: WP:NOTNEUTRAL, WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:ABIAS. So, no, WP:NPOV does not mean the view from nowhere.

The first think I’ll say is that I have long avoided the term “objectivity” when it comes to the various things I do, such as trying to reconstruct the past, or to interpret texts, or to analyze arguments. This may seem weird, but I don’t think “objectivity” or “subjectivity” are that helpful as categories.

— Bart Ehrman, Can Historians Be Neutral?, 2018
Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not a denialist, nor an anthroposoph nor a fan of Rudolf Steiner. And I therefore do not wish to be categorized as such. Like you, I am academically educated, and regard the scientific method very highly. But precisely the following sentence: 'His ideas are largely pseudoscientific.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Others call them parascience.[31]', implies that there is no scientific consensus that Steiner's ideas are pseudoscientific, after all others describe his ideas as parascience. So my point is not so much to equalize science with fringe science, but to equalize the first mentioned sources to the last mentioned sources.

Furthermore, I find only the source to Staudenmaier at the sentence : He was also prone to pseudohistory' not sufficient to make such a statement. That is why I have modified that sentence as well. I have read Staudenmaier, but he does not address the emanationism that underlies Steiner's history reading and Theosophy which is quite essential in understanding it. Again I am not a denialist, but I do think that statements like this should be properly substantiated, precisely in the name of the scientific method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodanmeb (talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Balance of Sources

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am not a denialist, nor an anthroposoph or a fan of Rudolf Steiner. And I therefore do not wish to be categorized as such. Like you, I am academically educated, and regard the scientific method highly. But precisely the following sentence: 'His ideas are largely pseudoscientific.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Others call them parascience.[31] implies that there is no scientific consensus that Steiner's ideas are pseudoscientific, after all others describe his ideas as parascience. So my point is not so much to equalize science with fringe science, but to equalize the first mentioned sources to the last mentioned sources.

Furthermore, I find only the source to Staudenmaier at the sentence : He was also prone to pseudohistory' not sufficient to make such a statement. That is why I have modified that sentence as well. I have read Staudenmaier, but he does not address the emanationism that underlies Steiner's 'historical' narrative which is quite essential in understanding it. Again I am not a denialist, but I do think that statements like those should be properly substantiated, precisely in the name of the scientific method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodanmeb (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Buna ziua domnule nontroll

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nenea ,doar pentru că îți impui opiniile și le motivezi cu surse din cărți ateiste nu înseamnă că restul care îți arată unde te înșeli sunt troli. Rahatul de articol scris din perspectiva ateista nu are decât surse părtinitoare ateiste iar când am incercat sa atrag atenția ca un citat din nu știu ce carte nu e argument ci doar opinie personala a autorului ce ați făcut? Ați restabilit aceeași prostie din orgoliu prostesc impunând propriul adevăr. Nu trebuie sa fii troll ca sa vezi că ceea ce faceți voi aici e o manipulare ,o minciună și o falsificare a datelor pentru prezentarea unei viziuni personale pe care o prezentati ca fiind adevăr susținut cu dovezi. Pe de altă parte domnilor fanatici cu prea mult timp liber sau plătiți pentru anumite interese când un creștin v-a prezentat o sursă ați sters-o pe motiv că nu e sursa credibilă. Pai voi spuneți că sunteți serioși și restul sunt troli că va strica joculețele? Pe de altă parte pe Wikipedia se șterg frecvent informații pe motiv că nu se prezinta sursa dar când sursa se dorește a fi prezentată ,surpriza Wikipedia zice că singura sursa disponibila e pe lista neagră și nu poate fi folosita iar când se reușește în sfârșit să se prezinte o alta ,e ștearsă pe motiv că sursa nu e credibilă.. Dar siturile ateiste așa zis științifice sunt dovezi în sine și surse și uite de asta voi ateii aveți religia voastră,știință.Sau ceea ce se vrea a fi știință pentru că de multe ori e exact opusul. 86.126.133.190 (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Nu sunt ateu, cred in Dumnezeu. (I'm not an atheist, I believe in God.) User:Tgeorgescu#Atheism.

@Elpiniki: Re I believe all edits that Christians add - no matter how well documented, are being removed by one or two vandals, see WP:Assume good faith. I'm a Christian and I rarely get my edits removed. That's because I only add stuff if I cite a mainstream academic source while doing so, instead of looking at last names and going "guess they're Jews or something." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Este o prăpastie enormă între un profesor universitar de Biblie creștin de la Ivy Plus și fundamentalismul bigot și neo-legionar al unor români. Eu pot afirma cu mândrie că în materie de Biblie țin cu profesorii universitari creștini, dar nu cu bigoții.
Translation: It is a great gap between Christian Bible professors from Ivy Plus and the fundamentalism of the bigots and neo-legionnaires from Romania. I proudly affirm that in respect to the Bible I side with Christian professors, but never with the bigots.
Morals: this is not a website dedicated to bigotism and ignorance. (Morala: asta nu e un website dedicat bigotismului si ignorantei.) tgeorgescu (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2022/February&oldid=1078767167"