Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Jokermage, why are you moving everything to the talk page?

I am attempting to distinguish between proposals and and actual project policy. Some of my additions may read like policy, so I don't want to confuse people into thinking that they are the view of the project until adopted and accepted by the project team. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion or two...

Can I suggest a weekly/monthly collaboration? As in, we identify an article that is in need of some skeptical attention and work together on it for a set amount of time. I'll happily help out but I don't really know where to start, so having an article that has been picked out as seriously needing attention would be a great help for me.

Also, if there are any useful websites people know of, starting a 'resources' section at the bottom of the page would be a good idea. --Hitchhiker89^talk 17:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Collab is up. We need nominees now. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 18:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Reference section is up. Go ahead and add to it. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 18:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Pseudoscience Proposal

This may not be necessary to say, but I'm putting it into words to be on the safe side. To ensure NPOV on Pseudoscience topics, we must clearly point out that the mainstream scientific view is the mainstream scientific view. I don't see any valid claim of POV against the skeptic point of view if it is pointed out that it is the skeptic point of view. For example:

Definate POV: "This system does not work and violates several principles in physics."

NPOV: "Skeptics argue that the system has yet to actually work and that the principles it is based on violate several laws and theories in physics."

The downside of this is that reality has to compromise with fantasy. The upside is that fantasy can't justify removing the criticism through NPOV.

Also, we should always, always, provide references for anything we add to a pseudoscience article. If we can show an interview transcript where a psuedoscience promoter said something, then it is that much harder for the pseudoscience supporters to say otherwise. Reports, studies and tests in reputible scientific journals should be a primary tool in our work. In editing, let the pseudoscience people have some degree of freedom on the pseudoscience sections. If they tell obvious falsehoods in the scientific sections, correct it and offer references to verify your correction. If you make a mistake while editing, admit it and thank anyone who shows you your mistake.

Finally, treat the pseudoscience supporters respectfully. Let the pseduoscience people be the ones that violate NPOV, POINT and WP:Dick.

In short, we are here to represent accurately the views of the mainstream scientific consensus. We should be critical, accurate and honest.

Please feel free to edit this to improve it. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"}

I recommended that everybody reads WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, if they haven't already, which explains the Wikipedia-approved approach to dealing with pseudoscience. Qarnos 09:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm striking my proposal in favor of Qarnos's. They cover the same issues, but his is concise and better organized. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 11:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines

Expanding on the NPOV and Pseuodoscience proposal from Joker, I think it would be a good idea to form a firm set of guidelines for our work. I have put my 3 major concerns into point form here. I know maprov will disagree with point one, so everyone feel free to pull this to pieces and let's come up with something which everybody is happy with. Qarnos 10:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Attribute everything.

This is basic NPOV, but we must take care to attribute all our data to the source. Compare the statements "Sylvia Browne has been convicted of fraud." and "According to an investigation by Spektical Inquirer, Sylvia Browne has been convicted of fraud."

Now, some may argue that the statement "Sylvia Browne has been convicted of fraud." is a statement of fact (which it is) and therefore does not need to be attributed. However, according to Wikipedia guidelines, a fact should only be presented as such when it is considered to be common knowledge to the vast majority of the human species. For instance, "Earth is the 3rd planet from a star named Sun (or, scientifically, Sol)." would be allowable.

For the last couple of months I've been using Harvard referencing on practically everything. (author, date:page). Bubba73 (talk), 20:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• We know we're right, but...

As critical thinkers, we know our explanation for the seemingly paranormal is the right one. But one thing we need to keep in mind is that true-believers also know that their explanations are correct. Their belief in quackery is as firm and unwavering as our belief in the rational, scientific explanations that expose it. You have as much chance of convincing a true-believer that John Edward is The Biggest Douche in The Universe as they have of convincing you that the passing of Mars through Sagittarius heralds a good time for making new acquaintences.

• Do not get involved in edit/reversion wars

Sure, it's hard to step back when you know the true nature of pseudoscience, but edit wars will do nothing other than tarnish the reputation of our project and its members. The last thing we need is the community thinking "Not these guys again. They always start edit wars!".

Qarnos, If I knew you were that damn eloquent, I would have had you write my section. This is pretty much what I wanted to get across, in a bulleted list. I support this measure. Excellent work. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 11:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Also remember, though, that (as is official wikipedia policy) we needn't give every view equal validity. The policy page even links to a humorous illustration of the "equal validity" issue. We are allowed to present the majority scientific view as the majority scientific view, and even give the majority weight of the article to that view.Matt

Project Member Banner

Let me know what you think. I created the logo by merging the Apollo 8 Earthrise picture with the Wikipedia logo. It can serve as a temporary logo until a permenant one is decided on. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 00:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful! When can we start using it? -- Fyslee 00:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know if the copyrights for it are 100% okay. I'm not very worried about the earthrise, since that is a NASA image. The Wikipedia logo on the other hand may have use restrictions. I'm still researching it. If we do decide to use it, I want to make sure there are no possible copyright issues. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 00:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts Jokermage, they're much appreciated.Maprov

I don't know if this will help or hurt, but I emailed Jimbo Wales about the image. I figure he can give me a yes or no or send me to someone who is authorized to make that call. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it should be good either way, as of course we want to stay within the rules. As for the banner, one stylistic issue: I wonder if someone could stretch it out a bit horizontally, so the "Wikiproject Rational Skepticism" could all be on one line.Maprov

What is your screen resolution and browser text size set to? The project name is on one line in my display. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 13:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why, but for some reason wikipedia pages always come up as a bigger text size than usual.Maprov

It should be possible for you to adjust the text size. That could make a world of difference. Check the toolbar for size options. Here is a good link: Changing Text Size -- Fyslee 05:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Banner

Now we have a project banner for members, but we should really have a banner for articles which are part of our project. Maybe someone who knows how to make one could do so.Ljstg 17:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's easy enough. I'll do it later; right now I'm waiting to find out if our logo is okay to use. If it isn't, then we have to design a new one. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 18:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Can somone create banner for articles? Just something that says this article is being worked on by our wikiproject. Thanks. Matt

I can have something made up, but I'm working on a new logo in case the temporary one is a copyright violation. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 05:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I made an article banner. The edit link only works on the Main namespace (it wont work on User: Template: Help: Wikipedia: Image: etc.) Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 07:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

New Categories by Fyslee

I have created some new Wikipedia Categories, so if you happen to be a skeptic or are against quackery, please join the appropriate category.

Here they are:

• [[Category:Skeptical Wikipedians|YOUR USER NAME]]
• [[Category:Anti-Quackery Wikipedians|YOUR USER NAME]]

-- Fyslee 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard any news on the status of wikipedians by ideology categories? Last I heard, they were discouraged or possibly banned. Just a heads up in case someone tries to delete the cats. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Then join up quickly! A group's legitimacy is partially determined by its numbers. -- Fyslee 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do, Fyslee, thanks for the initiative.Maprov

SkepticWiki

How many of us also edit at SkepticWiki? We should remember to link to it when possible.

• SkepticWiki

-- Fyslee 05:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutering POV

These are some thoughts that can be worked on and included in the Scope section. They address the ideal that NPOV should be "created where it does not exist."

From: Inedia: ending on a challenge in Greve.27s favor

My editing here was to clarify what was made unclear. Earlier, before Omegatron's edit, it looked like it was her (Jasmuheen (born Ellen Greve)) claim. Afterwards it looked like Omegatron was confirming her belief. I reinstated that it was her belief. That preserves a NPOV.

Qualifiers must be used when editors write their own words, or when the quotes they are citing cannot be left standing alone, so as to be misleading. (Deceivers must not be allowed to preach unopposed.)

The article should not be a soapbox for either the editors or the persons being quoted. It is the editor's job to neutralize (= to create NPOV by neutering or castrating strongly one-sided or POV statements) obviously undocumented or absurd statements in quotes, and that may even include pointing out their absurdity. This is standard Wikipedia policy, where majority and scientific viewpoints are given greater weight than absurd or minority viewpoints. -- Fyslee 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

More thoughts here. -- Fyslee 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

more skeptics

I've noticed that there are many people using the skeptic userbox now. But not many of them are in the wikiproject, probably because they aren't aware it exists. If someone has some time, I wonder if someone could send out messages to them about the group. Thanks.Maprov

How can you see who is using it? Is there a central place that registers all users of boxes? That would be nice! -- Fyslee 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Matthew, I haven't gotten a reply to my email.... -- Fyslee 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User_skeptic Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 05:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing debate

Members of this WikiProject, and Wikipedians interested in (or opposed to) rational skepticism in general, may be interested in the ongoing debate on Talk:Human regarding how to begin the article Human. The current consensus at that Talk page seems to be that science itself is just one of a number of equally relevant and valid POVs in an article about the human species, that humans cannot possibly be primates, animals, or hominids if any religion is correct, and that any attempts to suggest that the field of biology is an accurate depiction of reality are "anti-humanist" and "controversial", to the extent that there is no willingness to begin the article with any statement that "humans being primates" or similar (unlike Encyclopedia Britannica and most other encyclopedias, which do just that) unless the article first begins with the rather odd disclaimer "Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms." (even though the article is actually about human beings themselves, not about "how human beings define themselves"). For example (note that this is not an attempt to take a quote out of context, just to show an example of the current dominant viewpoint therein):

"I take issue with silence's SPOV (scientific or secular POV) dominating the article much as others have. I also see room for refinement, and changes more suitable to both sides. I have long found the intro an unhappy compromise with secular wikipedians. Humans are, first and foremost, spiritual beings. Thats the only thing we know for certain. All this flesh and blood and materialism could easilly be maya, illusion, window dressing. The soul on the other hand is my self, my being. I know what I am." -User:Sam Spade

I find this debate fascinating, very relevant to the course Wikipedia will take in the future, and a fundamental disagreement on the nature of reality and on interpretation of WP:NPOV, so I'd love to hear what you guys think about it. (Note that this comment is an effort to hear more arguments and discussion on this matter, not an attempt to stack votes or get more editing "manpower" or anything ridiculous like that. Anyone who is interested in coming over to human to talk this over, remember that this is a discussion, not a battle. Anyway, hope to get some responses! :o -Silence 21:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I got involved with this discussion shortly after Silence posted here and I am pleased to say that we have managed to come up with a new version of the introduction which everyone involved has agreed upon. Hitchhiker89^talk 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Praise the Lord!

Praise the Lord for this project! A few weeks ago I thought that Wikipedia was in danger of becoming a blog for pro-paranormal opinions. In the past I've done a lot on the skepticism side, but not much lately. I've added some articles to the list on the main page:

• pathological skepticism - the other side considers all skeptics pathological

• Green Fireballs - not much balance here. I recently added some at the end, see its discussion page.

• Philip J. Klass - the UFO side really hates him. Read "criticisms" section, which seems too large and one-sided to me.

• Roswell UFO incident - a lot of problems here a couple of months ago, but I haven't kept up.

• Majestic 12 - this had a lot of problems, but I haven't looked at it for months.

• Unidentified flying objects - this had a lot of problems, but I haven't looked at it for months.

I did some work on all of these except maybe the last one. Bubba73 (talk), 00:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Truzzi quote

IMO, the following quote deserves a place of honor here. It is in the public domain and no paraphrase or abbreviation can do it justice:

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. -- On Pseudo-Skepticism, A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi, Zetetic Scholar,#12-13, 1987

I consider it to be a (if not the) penultimate summation of skeptical principles. One has the whole thing summed up in a nutshell. Therefore I believe it deserves a prominent place here, sort of as a skeptic's "Declaration of Principles," or something like that. Maybe you can describe it better. It is - at the least - a very valuable and widely quoted citation, and therefore deserves a place here, IMHO.

I know Marcello Truzzi was a controversial person, but if one looks at the quote itself - just as it is - doesn't it make some excellent points? Let me hear what you all think. -- Fyslee 11:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He says if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact - Seeming results are contradicted all of the time, but that doesn't constitute a proof of a negative hypothesis. Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the first part of the quote:

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual."

Is there anything in that part that you find objectionable? I'm just trying to figure out what some other skeptics think. -- Fyslee 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That part sounds fine to me. My objection to the last part is only a slight one. I think he ahad a big philisophical difference with most skeptics. Bubba73 (talk), 00:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now to the last part:

"But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."

What were your objections to this last sentence (not to Truzzi himself)? -- Fyslee 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

None really, about the quote. If you're going to use the quote, might as well use all of it. I'm not sure, but I think that quote was leading up to him calling himself a "true skeptic" and criticizing most skeptics. I have his book The Blue Sense and there are at least two passages there where he does that. I think the rest of the source of the quote is not representative of most skeptics. Bubba73 (talk), 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do have a little quibble with the last part. It sounds to me like he thinks that showing a negative result is trying to prove the negative hypothesis, and that isn't true. Skeptics aren't trying to prove the negative hypotheses. For instance, Randi has tested more dowsers than anyone, as far I know. But he doesn't think that he has disproven dowsing, otherwise he could close up shop. We're still looking for one case to prove dowsing, no number of failures can disprove dowsing. I don't think Truzzi understood this. Bubba73 (talk), 15:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You may be right in your interpretation. (I've lived in Denmark for the last 23 years, so my English has gotten a bit rusty.....;-)

I interpret it in a different way. I see it as a proposition of "fairness" in discussions. He is placing the same burden of proof on both parties, both the true believer and the skeptic. Let's see if I can figure out how to explain this:

If a true believer makes an unusual claim, he bears the burden of proof, but if the skeptic (mistakenly?!?) enters the dialogue with more than a "nice for you, but I'm not convinced", the skeptic has placed himself in a position of obligation - an obligation to provide proof for the counter claim.

The wise skeptic may legitimately choose to refuse to be drawn into endless and futile arguments with nutcases and true believers. He bears no obligation:

"The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual."

If instead the skeptic retorts that the claim has been disproven, then he has made a counter claim and is therefore obligated to provide evidence for the claimed disproof. Fair enough. (One has to be careful with one's wording with some quarrelsome believers, who will immediately notice the counter claim and assert their right to see the evidence.

If one has the time to educate such persons, then it is a noble endeavor to attempt to teach them, by presenting the evidence against their odd beliefs and claims, but it may be futile effort. In the medical sciences this may be easier than in some other areas, where there is more speculation and hypothesis. A careful explanation of anatomy, physiology, physics, etc., may be enough to silence such a believer, and even to teach them something.

Since a fool can ask more questions than the wisest man can ever answer, I often choose to leave the discussion without making a counter claim. This may leave them frustrated, but they have no right to impose an obligation on me, just because they contacted me.

Have I interpreted Truzzi correctly? -- Fyslee 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"The true skeptic takes an agnostic position" - that's one definition. There are others - a skeptic can simply be a person who doubts certain claims. Also, calling oneself "true" as opposed to "false" skeptics smells funny, especially if the difference between both is one of opinion. Truzzi denigrates people because of their viewpoint! One should never use people's viewpoint to criticize them because that leads nowhere. Criticize their arguments! Arguments are easier to drop than viewpoints.

"Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything" - so the "true skeptic" takes the easy way out. He sits on the fence, sure that he cannot be criticized because he does not take any position, and hits all the others over the head for not sitting on the fence. That makes him an overbearing, know-it-all, by-own-definition-never-wrong person. We don't need those, in my opinion. We just need people on different sides of the fence (and maybe some on the fence) who exchange arguments. Let the quality of the arguments decide.

In that paragraph you see one of the reasons why Truzzi and CSICOP split ways. Would you like to regularly work with a person who dogmatically insists that you have to assume his viewpoint to become a "true skeptic"? I wouldn't. --Hob Gadling 19:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

List of more than 200 pages relevant to this project

I'm new to projects, so I don't know what exactly to do... but I think my watchlist, which I copied here would come in handy for this. --Hob Gadling 20:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try an experiment. If it works, I'll post the link on the project page:

• Skeptic watchlists -- Fyslee 22:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It worked and now I have added a link to Hob's great list.

• Skeptic watchlists -- Fyslee 09:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of them on Hob's list that need to be worked on, or at least watched. Bubba73 (talk), 02:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

TOC

I may have screwed up the TOC (on the project page). Anyone who understands it better might make some improvements. -- Fyslee 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist, short list

The Watchlist is a long list of relevant topics to this project. The Project Work is a short list of articles being actively edited. Do we have a process for getting active attention on a few articles not on the short list? Bubba73 (talk), 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientific point of view

At one time there was a proposal to write articles from a Scientific point of view policy. I would be in favor of that, but it looks like it fell by the wayside. Bubba73 (talk), 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC rational skeptics may be interested in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto Midgley 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between Skeptics and extremely abusive people ?

What is the difference between a skeptic and someone being extremely abusive to a person who has seen/encountered something bizarre, even has evidence of said encounter ? I have ran into extremely abusive people who also claimed that they were "skeptics". One "skeptic" cursed and cussed me out, even threatened to have me put in a nut house. Told one Wikipedian the sickening details of that encounter, and apologised for it as well.While investigating a Bigfoot incident in Fouke, Arkansas long ago, some idiot threatened to shoot me IF I was what he called "one of those assholes". I do humbly apologise for that, but the truth has to be told. It was that some "skeptics" had flat out accused the citizens of this small city of lying, being drunk and ignorant hillbillies and worse. We at Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers do practice skepticisim, to weed out the hoaxers and the real nuts, and we don't abuse those that have had strange things happen to them. One deterrence to a hoax and/or a real nut is that those running certain paranormal related websites actually do send out investigative details who investigate the incident in the manner of a police investigation, which includes investigating the claimants, of course in a respectable manner. If the claimed incident is photographed, the camera used is taken apart and examined for defects. If it is on tape, the tape is examined, the tape recorder is dissassembled and examined for defects. During the whole investigation, afterwards, there is no derogatory matter going on. I don't mind skeptics, even like them. Its those that abuse the word "skeptic" by rampantly insulting, abusing, ridiculing, disrespecting people that make "skeptic" a four letter word, and damages what being a skeptic is all about. Martial Law 18:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

At the time a "Skeptic" cursed/cussed me out, threatened me, I was in Phoenix, Arizona investigating the Phoenix UFO Incident. And people wonder why skeptics are classed as Pathologically Skeptical. Martial Law 18:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

• "What is the difference between a skeptic and someone being extremely abusive to a person who has seen/encountered something bizarre, even has evidence of said encounter ?" - Skepticism means that one does not accept unusual claims without sufficient evidence to support them. It does not mean that one persecutes, attacks, insults, or abuses people who hold unconventional views; that would be a form of "bigotry", and I don't think we have a WikiProject Bigotry at this point. :) So, to answer your question: the difference is that a rational skeptic is the exact opposite of what you describe, in that, while he may reject unverified or unverifiable claims about the "bizarre", he will (or at least should) only do so after hearing the claimant out and reviewing all the evidence in a neutral way. One key aspect to rational skepticism is that it does not preclude belief in things that are currently believed to be fantastic or impossible; it precludes belief in those things until they're clearly shown to be otherwise. Indeed, the dictionary definition of skepticism that best applies here is: "A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty."
• "One "skeptic" cursed and cussed me out, even threatened to have me put in a nut house." - And one "Christian" killed 6 million Jews, does that make all Christians anti-Semites? If I have a pet dog with three legs, is it fair of me to conclude that all dogs have three legs, or that the definition of the word dog is "a three-legged animal"? Of course not. You were right to put "skeptic" in quotes, because it sounds like the person you were speaking to was more like an ideological extremist. Remember that not everyone who self-describes as being something properly fits into that category, and that the same word can have different meanings for different people; you shouldn't assume that one bad egg means that every egg is bad.
• "While investigating a Bigfoot incident in Fouke, Arkansas long ago, some idiot threatened to shoot me IF I was what he called "one of those assholes"." - Sounds like he was either joking (albeit darkly) or a complete psycho. Again, I fail to see how these actions have anything to do with skepticism; it's true that most self-described "skeptics" don't believe in bigfoot, but that doesn't mean that they're intolerant of people who do believe in bigfoot. In some cases, it's just the opposite, in fact; I consider myself to have a rather skeptical and relatively pragmatic world-view, but some of my best friends have absolutely bizarre beliefs and some truly insane tendencies—and I loves 'em for it. Skepticism indicates an appreciation for and awareness of verifiable and evidence-supported ideas, not an outright intolerance for the absurd, peculiar, or arcane ones.
• "I do humbly apologise for that, but the truth has to be told." - If you are telling the truth, you have no reason to apologize, and I'm actually glad you came here to discuss this matter, even though this isn't quite the ideal venue for such a talk (WikiProjects are about improving Wikipedia, not directly addressing people's misconceptions or answering their questions). Many people have bad experiences in their life that predispose them to a certain negative or prejudiced view against another group; heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the people who mistreated you so badly were just lashing out because they themselves had been abused by people intolerant of their beliefs. The key is to stop the cycle of hate and be willing to expand your understanding of different people's world-views: rather than developing a bias against anyone with a skeptical view, even people who don't demonstrate any of the hostility you've met in your past encounters, you should continue to keep an open mind and judge people based on their actions, not on their self-labels.
• "We at Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers do practice skepticisim, to weed out the hoaxers and the real nuts, and we don't abuse those that have had strange things happen to them." - I'm glad to hear it. I wish you luck in your future fact-finding.
• "I don't mind skeptics, even like them." - Again, I'm glad to hear it. You seem like an overall reasonable person who's just had some bad luck with running into a few nutcases in the past; I'm glad to hear that you are (if I'm reading your statement here correctly) willing not to let your past experiences predispose you to mistreating or ignoring the viewpoints of people you meet in the future who call themselves "skeptics". Some of the most brilliant minds in the world today self-identify as skeptics, and I'm sure they'd tell you as well that the people you've run into in the past are the exception, not the rule. :)
• "Its those that abuse the word "skeptic" by rampantly insulting, abusing, ridiculing, disrespecting people that make "skeptic" a four letter word, and damages what being a skeptic is all about." - Anything can be a "four letter word"; it all depends on context. I don't believe that this is a large-scale problem on Wikipedia (or the world at large, for that matter); most editors around here, regardless of their skepticism, are quite courteous, even with seemingly outrageous or bizarre claims. If you do run into any trouble, please feel free to send me a message about it and I'll try to help sort things out peacefully. As a kid, I, too, was very interested in many things related to the "paranormal", before moving on to more firm and less pseudoscientific ground later on, so I can, to some extent, see the appeal on both sides of the fence. :) -Silence 19:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I was telling the truth about that idiot in Fouke, and about the "skeptic" in Phoenix, Arizona.

I did not know how some would have taken what I have related here about what happened to me. Martial Law 20:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

• Well, I'm certain you'll get nothing but sympathy regarding your bad experiences in the past, though you may get some less-than-positive responses to incendiary statements like "What is the difference between Skeptics and extremely abusive people ?" (how would you like it if someone started a conversation with you by saying "What is the difference between people interested in the paranormal and extremely abusive people?"), and your last statement, "And people wonder why skeptics are classed as Pathologically Skeptical.", also seems deliberately weighted to try to cause offense, considering that the pathological skepticism page makes it clear that the term, more than anything, is really a subtle polysyllabic slur designed to dismiss opponent's arguments through ad hominem label-waving (cf. "crackpot" for paranormalists). But I'll assume good faith and just take your post here as an honest question, not an insinuation. Is there anything else you want to know about rational skepticism? -Silence 20:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I do see what you mean. Really do. Martial Law 21:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

This has been cited AS "approved govt. policy" towards those that report UFOs and/or aliens:

The Robertson Panel, Project Grudge. The information for both was obtained by the FOIA. The former was initated by the CIA to "reduce" interest in UFOs after Washington, D.C. was literally swamped with UFOs in 1952, while the latter was a USAF project with appropriate overtones. The Robertson Panel states that shrinks, media people,etc. are to be used in a debunking campaign to "reduce" interest in UFOs, in a nutshell, to ridicule people who have had these encounters. It also says that all UFO organizations are to be spied upon, and there is evidence that this is still going on. What do you think of these "alleged" govt. policies ? Martial Law 21:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

What does this have to do with anything? To charge in, throwing accusations and trying to start an argument on your terms, doesn't inspire warmth and friendship among those you're charging, be they the most gullible or most skeptical.--Prosfilaes 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I read the heading to this discussion, and I was sure the punch line to a joke would follow! Imagine my disappointment! Tex 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No accusations, no jokes. Just asking a simple question. Martial Law 22:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

One other thing, is Rational Skepticisim similar to "Objective Journalisim" that is taught in Journalisim class, what is taught to police, others to thoroughly investigate incidents and things ? Again, I (1)have not accused anyone at all, (2) have not started arguments at all , (3)have made no jokes at all. Just asking some simple questions, no more, no less. I have had some bad experiences with "skeptics" and "believers" as well. Martial Law 23:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

What is the difference between a UFO believer and a complete idiot? Can you read that and not take it as an accusation or a joke?--Prosfilaes 23:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That I know is a joke. Martial Law 23:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Here is why I said I have had a bad experience with the believers:

I was traveling the South Western US, Western US, Eastern US, basically in a nutshell, the whole US as a gold prospector when I was told that IF there is alien contact, people will rebel in reaction to it, for religious reasons (Some religious sects that I've encountered claim that UFOs and/or aliens are "of The Devil" and cite certain Biblical passages as evidence, thus they'll fight "The Devil and his minions".), out of vengeance for being ridiculed as persuant to certain govt./military protocol. I was after GOLD, meteorites, (Some types of meteorites are worth 20,000 kings' ransom per gram in some cases. One meteorite allegedly sold for $200,000 US, it was claimed it had "Mars bugs" in it, since it allegedly came from Mars. ), fossils, since some of those are worth a LOT of money to private collectors. Some of the areas had private armies in or near the areas I've been to. Martial Law 23:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Well, I really do appreciate the assisstance. I did not mean to step on anyone's toes at all. I have been caught between two or more, (How do I put this ? ) factions. I sincerely hope we can be allies, since we have similar mission statements. We're just trying to keep the articles NPOV, neither "skeptic", nor "believer", as you're doing, letting the reader make up his/her mind up on what is presented, based on all evidence. Martial Law 00:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Chiro

Could somebody check on the Chiropractic talk again. Too much chiropractors there right now. ackoz 00:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Holism

I tagged Holism in science a while ago. There are a number of issues with it. Hopefully people here might help improve this article. --ScienceApologist 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issue

I have begun a discussion of NPOV issues related to this group here. --ScienceApologist 14:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP article

For several months now the article Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal has been dogged by an editor with a strong anti-sceptic, anti-CSCOP bias. Just to give you an idea of this person's thought processes, in my first encounter with him he was arguing that, because some people with Synaesthesia see "auras," they should be awarded the Randi prize. This editor is determined to load the CSICOP article with criticisms of the organization from various parties. There are many valid criticisms of CSICOP to be found, just as there are valid criticisms of any organization. My complaint with this editor is that he wants to insert his POV into the article by devoting disproportionate space to every remotely valid critical comment he can dig up.

Every now and then, a less-biased reader will leave a comment in the CSICOP article's discussion page complaining the article is "way too slanted against the organization" or "reads as if it were written by people who actively dislike CSICOP." (No one has ever voiced the opposite complaint.) But no editor with this opinion (other than myself) has been willing to stick around, add the article to his/her watch list, actively try to improve the article and defend it against the unceasing efforts of its resident malevolent poltergeist editor.

I spent several weeks in active debate with this editor, part of that time with mediation. The compromise we came up with is the version that a few "passers by" have complained was too negative. But this editor isn't happy with that too-negative compromise, and went on to break our mediated agreements and reinsert his POV. Since I have no interest in debating him any further, I'm reduced to "sterile edit warring"--just reverting his stuff whenever I feel he's crossed the line and insofar as the three-revert rule permits me.

So... This is an appeal for editors of a rational/sceptical bent to take an active interest in this article. All that's needed is one more active editor on this side of the fence. With just one more editor arguing against this editor's POV, he'll most likely become discouraged and leave the article alone. KarlBunker 11:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ghost Hunters

Lots of debate regarding alleged evidence of ghosts and the scientific value of 'ghost hunting'. Balancing opinions needed. Please see Ghost Hunters and The Atlantic Paranormal Society. LuckyLouie 02:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

What the Bleep Do We Know!? has a NPOV tag for pointing out, among other things, that the movie was made by people to help spread the teachings of their spiritual teacher Ramtha. These teachings include the idea that quantrum mechanics allows (proves?) that each person can literally "create their own reality"... a.k.a mind over matter. I'd like to take the NPOV tag down, but I'm waiting for some discussion to appear on the talk page first either agreeing with me or illustrating what needs to be fixed. Thanks. Adelord 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Nonnotable article up for deletion. Let your voice be heard: delete Quackpotwatch - Bolen's propaganda machine

My vote? (I just knew you'd ask.....;-)

• Delete. Fails WP:WEB miserably. Main content of website is conspiracy theories and libelous statements. No documentation. Admits under deposition his vicious lies are just "euphemism." No evidence of reliability or credibility. Nothing but opinions prefaced with "I believe" and "I think." -- Fyslee 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Fyslee 22:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions. Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Philosophy/Religion WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 06:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)