Talk:Anthroposophy/Archive 1

First Remarks
First, people get upset for me removing non-NPOV criticism from this page, and now an anthroposophist sent me a long and lingering sob-letter for removing his redesign of the same page into ouright anthroposophical evangelism.

Please, if you do not like the Wikipedia NPOV policy (and read it!), then don't contribute. Start your own wiki instead.

To all others that have helped out in making this entry great, thanks for your tireless work. Nixdorf 19:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This page reads like a missionary pamphlet for antroposophy. Sad really, for an article in an encyclopedia that aims to present things from a neutral point of view. The truth is outside of antroposophy and antroposophy-critical circles, Steiner, biodynamics, eurythmy etc. are largely unknown, but this page (and the page on Steiner) reads like Steiner was some kind of genius philosopher. There is probably a lot more antroposophy critical stuff than positive material on the net. /Emanuel Landeholm

Added a \{\{POV check \}\} template. I will expand on my criticism of this article tomorrow. /Emanuel Landeholm

I didn't write that Anthroposophy is a cult, but that Critics have called it a cult. Which is a fact, see for example http://www.waldorfcritics.org. So where do I break NPOV?

Linards Ticmanis, not a registered Wikipedia member as of yet.


 * The current wording is more nuanced. What I want to see is:


 * 1. Names. Who are these critics? If you use the plural form critics you must name atleast two people or organizations by name or simply write "The Site Waldorfcritics.com claim that..."
 * 2. Criteria these people or organizations have used for defining "cult" and "New Age". These are blanket terms and not informative as such. The part about uncritical praise of Steiners person looks good though.


 * A heading with collected critical views would also be nice. Nixdorf 13:46, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The following was removed by me from the article page for breaking the NPOV:


 * Critics have called Athroposphy an occultist cult within the larger New Age scene, which uncritically elevates Steiner's personal opinions to the level of absolute truth.

Nixdorf 21:10, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

VWS, would you mind correcting the original article? Wesley

I'm sorry for not having been in touch - as Dreamshade correctly said below, I'm not a regular Wikipedian. On a first reading, I find the new entry on Anthroposophy quite all right. I'm going to have it printed and study it carefully. I also don't object leaving below my comments to the early version; I think they add additional information to the new entry; moreover, it's good to have some comments on what Anthroposophy _is not_. For this, please look at the section Anthroposophy on http://www.sab.org.br. Please write directly to me at vwsetzer@ime.usp.br. Valdemar W. Setzer (male...), on April 21, 2005.

I don't think she's a regular Wikipedian: should we try to contact her (vwsetzer at ime.usp) and ask her if she wants to? Or wait for someone else to do it? -- Dreamyshade


 * Either way. I don't know anything about the subject, but it looks like VWS at the least has a well-researched view. But it should be presented as straightforward statements. In its current form, it would be more appropriate for this page. Unfortunately, I'm not volunteering, just offering a suggestion. :-/ Wesley

The following text was moved from the article page olivier 04:10 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

Contribution by Valdemar W. Setzer, http://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer, based upon an early version of the entry above (as it was changed, some of the observations do not apply to its present version):

1. Anthroposophy is NOT based on Theosophy. Its creator, Rudolf Steiner, was a philosopher and editor of Goethe's scientific works until the beginning of the 20th century. Then on request of a group of Theosophists in Berlin, he began to give public lectures on spiritual subjects. In his autobiography, he said that Theosophists were the only people that were opened to hear the results of his spiritual research. He eventually joined the German Theosophical Society, and lead lead it for ten years, but had always stressed that his ideas were original, and were not based on previous writings by other authors. He repeatedly said that, after having done some of his own research, he would check to see how much his findings were in accordance with other texts, as for instance the Bible. In 1913, due to differences in opinions, he left the Theosophical Society and founded the Anthroposophic Society, which has its headquarters at the Goetheanum, in Dornach, Switzerland.

The reader is urged to read some of his writings to verify these statements. For those with no inclination to spiritualism, start with a book that he considered his most important one, and which was a development of his Doctoral Thesis at the University of Rostock: _The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity_. Some translations have used a titled which is a transliteration of the original German: _The Philosophy of Freedom_. It contains a very important and original analysis of perception, thinking and consciousness.

2. The statement "reality is essentially spiritual" should be clarified. In Anthroposophic terms, a more precise formulation could be "behind any reality there is something spiritual." Physical reality is absolutely essential from the Anthroposophic point of view.

3. The subdivision of the human being in body, soul and spirit is just one of the human structures used in Anthroposophy. There are others, which help e.g. to understand why developed plants are different from minerals, why animals are different from plants and why humans are so different from animals. Obviously, there are concepts connecting each possible structure to others. Steiner gave clear concepts on the various constituents of the human being, e.g. clearly separating what he meant by "soul" and what by "spirit."

4. The aim of Anthroposophy is NOT to reach higher levels of consciousness. In a lecture of Nov. 13, 1909 (he gave more than 6,000 lectures, all published, and wrote almost 30 books - Anthroposophy has absolutely nothing secret or sectarian) he said that understanding the spiritual word was more important than observing it. He was absolutely against observing the spiritual word through mystic visions, which are characterized by lack of conscious thinking accompanying the observations. In general, mystics direct themselves to feelings, and not to reasoning, and do not transmit their observations through clear concepts, as Steiner did.

5. The phrase "The movement is adverse to earthly pleasures - if the spirit enjoys earthly pleasures it will be reincarnated in a new body and will not reach the higher spirit world." is absolutely wrong from the Anthroposophical point of view. According to the latter, reincarnation does not depend on "earthly pleasures." I challenge the anonymous author of the text to cite one of Steiner's passages - or of any of the thousands of works written by Anthroposophists - where such an absurdity is found. This phrase reveals that the author has at best "heard" about Anthroposophy, and has not studied it.

6. Steiner inaugurated a new form of Medicine, called Anthroposophical Medicine, which he insisted to call an "Erweiterung," an extension of academic medicine. Among others, it uses homeopathic drugs, but their preparation differs from classical Homeopathy. The statement of a part of a plant looking similar to an organ is not correct. Furthermore, in the Anthroposohic terminology, plants do no have what it calls "astral body." Only humans and animals have it. This is one further demonstration that the author of the text is not familiar with the basics of Anthroposophy.

7. Besides a new form of medicine, Steiner renewed many other fields: Waldorf Education, now with more than 100 schools in the USA, and more than 800 in the world; Biodynamic Farming; Organic Architecture; and social renewal, the so-called "Threefold Social Organization." He also introduced two new forms of art, Eurithmy and Speech Formation. A new kind of curative education was developed following his ideas, of which the most popular initiative is the Camphill Movement.

For further information on Anthroposophy, please visit the site of the General Anthroposophic Society, http://www.goetheanum.ch. I am the webmaster of the Anthroposophic Society in Brazil; its site contains some material in English, including a chronological biography of Rudolf Steiner, at http://www.sab.org.br ; maybe it would be interesting for the reader to give a look at its section "Anthroposophy."

End of VWS's contribution.

I don't understand the relevancy of the external link on "Audio McCarthyism" to the subject of antroposophy. Is it just a lame attempt at discrediting a critical voice? -Emanuel Landeholm

Not a Science
Anthroposophy is not considered a science by any scientific authority whilst psychology is. Also it does not fit any modern model of what science is. To compare the two is to try to give anthroposophy a level of acceptance and authority it does not have and is misleading to the reader. This is an attempt to promote Anthroposophy rather than fairly report on it. Lumos3 13:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What is a scientific authority?


 * A science department at a University, a peer reviewed journal, a learned society of scientists. If you can find an example of any of these calling Anthroposophy a science I would be interested to know.Lumos3 08:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Outright slander
One of the primary links on the Stelling page has outright slander on it (reference to the O.T.O.). I am removing the link to this page. Hgilbert 02:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The SIMPOS page contains over 100 links to articles which comment on Anthroposophy. You claim that one of these onwardly links to a page which you say contains a slander. This is a poor argument for removing the link to a sober and useful resource and feels like censorship. You cannot protect the reader from accessing sites you disapprove of. Lumos3 11:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The link is the second on the list. It is to a discredited source (there have been law suits over these matters; it is not a matter of opinion but of established fact). Neither false information nor links to false information belong in an encyclopedia. It is not censorship but honest standards; would you wish false information about you to appear in or be linked to by the Wikipedia? Hgilbert 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A secondary link, not the one in Wikipedia but an onward link leads to a page which you say contains slanderous remarks. I don’t believe this is sufficient grounds for removing the link to the intermediate page. The SIMPOS page is not itself a problem. We cannot prevent a reader exploring the www by trying to close doors. Which court cases are you referring to can you give details? Lumos3 21:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes to the latter; a book was published in Germany called the Schwarzbuch Anthroposophie with the claim about the OTO (amongst other claims that appear on the SIMPOS page/links) and a court case was brought against it due to the libelous contents. The case was successful and the book was withdrawn from sales. For a reference to this case see an article which was originally printed in an official Swiss government journal, Bulletin der Eidgenössischen Kommission gegen Rassismus EKR, Bern: the link is http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/anthroposophie1999.html

The SIMPOS page is a problem if it does not ensure that its links are respectable; in the last month, Science magazine has publicized heavily problems with reports on cloning it had published that turned out to be falsified, though it was the authors of this journal, not the magazine, that had falsified material. A page that does not work to ensure accuracy should not be linked to, plain and simple. If they want to ensure that they have accurate material on their site, a bare minimum for scientific (or encyclopediac) respectability, they can be linked to. Wikipedia is implicitly recommending its links for their accuracy.


 * Please, can we stop the revert war. I agree the link following the link is of dubious nature, but that disputed article in turn also links its own critics ( by Peter-R. Koenig) at the bottom. I think that the link can stand since Wikipedia readers are highly capable of critical thinking and can evaluate facts and slander alike themselves. Nixdorf 23:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples where other Wikipedia articles link to pages with links to slanderous, or simply false, information? I think of Holocaust deniers, for example, are they given a chance to make their voice known? The Flat Earth society? People can obviously evaluate these facts and slanders equally well. Are there any examples at all to establish that this is Wikipedia policy?


 * Are you trying to argue that Wikipidia can only link to sites which are 100% bone fide, because there is no such thing. All sites contain errors and omissions. The Science (journal) site still has credibility and is linked to in articles, its up to the reader to treat any information with caution. Lumos3 13:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hgilbert, there are several such links actually. For example see entries for Majestic 12 or Flat Earth Society which you mentioned yourself. Readers obviously have to evaluate all information, even that which is on Wikipedia, linked from Wikipedia, or linked 2 degrees away from Wikipedia or whatever. Please turn down your belligerent tone, it does not add to the discussion. Nixdorf 11:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for any mis-tones.

The Science journal (and its site) have credibility because they have immediately reacted to the accusations of falsifications; the top headline on their site is South Korean team's claim demolished. I looked at the links from Flat Earth Society; they are well-balanced discussions not entirely sympathetic to the idea of a Flat Earth, not polemical supports of this. In a second section titled 'External Links' there is a link to the Flat Earth Forum, which is a discussion group, and as such does not pretend to be anything but obviously personal opinions of not necessarily qualified participants. I would personally say that this is a radically different solution; the PLANS web-site has this character, for example.


 * OK, I understand your concern, but can you be precise on the demarcation line between "highly critical" and "slanderous"? I would be inclined to say that sites spreading verified lies are "slanderous", and if that article about the Ordo Templi Orientis was linked directly, I could understand if it was removed. However, I think it's still a bit of a special case since they link their critics (Mr. Koenig), this means they recognize the need for debate and critical thinking. But I don't think that unlinking a portal resource can be supported by this fact, I think it's too weak. I think we need more voices than just the three of us so we can reach some broader consensus before this is resolved. Nixdorf 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say there are several distinct stages that might help: neutral, critical, polemical and slanderous. Under neutral I would include simply informative sites, as well as discussions that include positive and negative aspects, pro and contra reasons and stances. This would be my preferred category for anything under general links. Critical approaches would be unsympathetic but relatively objective discussions; both sides of issues should be included, but a critical bias might be apparent. Polemical discussions simply ignore positive features and seek out negative ones; they may distort facts, are clearly unbalanced and should really only appear when there's room for a rebuttal as well (this is what journals do with such contributions; they ask for a response from the original author or a representative of the other side -- the Swiss governmental site I mention on this discussion page does exactly this). Polemics are not normally included in encyclopedia links; they might be referenced by researchers who already have a background in the subject and can see through the polemic while looking for any valuable nuggets buried in the bias. Slander (or simply erroneous information) is found when there are provably false statements made. These do not belong anywhere near a respectable site, or if they creep on, they are corrected immediately.

That would be my off-the-cuff suggestion for a nuanced policy; I would welcome others help here, as I am sure that I've left out important aspects. I do think it important that Wikipedia finds a clear and consistent approach (and perhaps all this has already been worked through somewhere). Hgilbert 19:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Should the SIMPOS site entitled "Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner, Waldorf schools; and their critics" be linked
The SIMPOS site is a resource containing links to (mainly critical) information on occult tendencies. User Hgilbert is arguing that because this site's Antroposophy page contains 1 link out of 100 that onwardly links to another site that contains material of dubious quality the whole SIMPOS site should be excluded from this articles external links section. SIMPOS is merely a collection of links. It is a key resource for those wishing to find views on Anthoposophy that don't originate from inside the movement. The SIMPOS site is http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/anthroposophy.htm, for those wishing to follow this conversation but without the benefit of a link on the article page. Lumos3 13:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the link is placed in the highly prominent position of being second in the list, not buried somewhere amongst the 60 or so actual links. Second of all, it is not just dubious; it is slanderous. Third of all, there are other problematic links on the site; I mentioned only the one that contains verifiably slanderous material (because there has been a court case over this, the evidence is clear). Many or most of the other links are written by polemicists (as opposed to historians, objective journalists, or experts in any field) and several of them have also been described publicly as false or slanderous; there are published, hot discussions about this. Above and beyond this, many of the respectable-appearing links are actually dead; they no longer function. To have contentious or highly-debated material is one thing; to have outright slanderous material is another. Having both gives credence to the accusations of slander or error against the 'only' dubious material, as well. There are surely balanced discussions and expert opinions that would better serve an encylopedia. I will try to find something that gives the questions that are being publicly debated without themselves entering problematic territory! Hgilbert 01:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion here is should we link to a Portal site which links uncritically to a range of material on this subject. I think we should.


 * I don’t think we should directly link to sites which tell lies, but all the others are fair to use as references if they illustrate a point of view or serve as a resource. It is the Wikipedia article which allows the reader to make sense of the range of sites by putting them in a broader context. Its part of Wikipedia’s scope  to tell the whole story about a subject including all sides of arguments past and present and to report on the untruths which might have circulated and how these were repudiated.


 * NPOV means a reader gets a look at all points of view in circulation. Libel cases are just another part of the story to be reported in the article. Lumos3 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Critical views
I have tried to rewrite the 'critical views' section that incorporates the suggestions above (giving an overview to put the linked pages in context). Please extend this as appropriate! Hgilbert 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy
Wikipedia policy is to name particular people if quoting. I am modifying the added sentence about 'mainstream philosophers' appropriately.

Mistletoe
I looked at one of the links just added and it says, in part: Findings from laboratory studies have suggested that mistletoe may enhance the activity of immune system cells so that they release more of the chemicals that damage cancer cells.

Animal studies assessing mistletoe's ability to stop cancer cell growth have had different results depending on the extract used, the dose, how it was given, and the type of cancer studied. Results of a few animal studies have suggested that mistletoe may be useful in decreasing the side effects of conventional cancer therapy, such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and that it may counteract the effects of drugs used to suppress the immune system.

A heading 'mistletoe references showing it to be largely ineffective' is inappropriate for a reference that contains a differentiated range of results. Also, there is already a 'references section. I am merging the two and retitling the added references. Hgilbert 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
There has been a lot of work to make this article neutral, and a lot of discussion about what needs work has gone over the bridge on this page. At this stage, before a NPOV check is put into place, any remaining problematic areas should be mentioned here (and worked on). Most of the article is purely descriptive at this point.

I am removing the NPOV check; please go through the above process before deciding if it needs to be restored. Hgilbert 20:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Emanuel Landeholm: you have commented about the lot's of stuff on the net that is not included in this article. Please read Wikipedia's standards for inclusion for external links, especially the section titled Links to normally avoid, and using online sources. Like any encylopedia, only original source material, work that is written by knowledgeable authorities, work published in peer-reviewed journals, and similar authoritative sources are suitable. Web-postings on newsgroups, for example, are not generally considered reliable encyclopedia sources. We would all welcome expansion of this article to include more points of view so long as Wikipedia standards for sources are held to!!

I also strongly recommend that you register as a Wikipedia user and login as such when editing; this eases communication and helps identify who is editing what. Hgilbert 01:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of this article.

1. Anthroposophy is not a science, "spiritual" or otherwise. Not by any stretch of imagination. That RS himself asserted it is doesn't count for much. RS asserted lots of things and many of those assertions where completely looney, if you pardon my expression. L Ron Hubbard called his brainchild, dianetics, a science. Notwithstanding, the Wikipedia page on dianetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics) rightfully identifies it as a pseudoscience.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
 * The article does not claim that anthroposophy is a science, but that RS called it this. This is simply accurate. The introduction clearly states that anthroposophy is not one of the natural sciences.
 * See this link for one small example of the scientific basis for anthroposophy.
 * I know the article doesn't say it but my point is the Dianetics article doesn't say LRH thought it was a science and neither should this article.

2. The new-agey woo-woo about QM having said anything negative about objective study and the naive musings on the reality of the number two and the imaginary unit is complete bollocks and totally irrelevant to the subject of anthroposophy's relation to science. Again, pardon my french, and I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Mechanics
 * Quantum mechanics does assert exactly what is said in the article, especially in the Copenhagen interpretation. Mathematics has often been called a non-empirical science, as it is in the Wikipedia article Science, for exactly the reasons cited in this article referring to 2 and i. It is not irrelevant; the discussion is about the meaning of nonempirical sciences.
 * Excuse me, but you're making a fool out of yourself.

3. Anthroposophy is not philosophy. It is not recognised as such by professional philosophers. Philosophy (good philosophy at any rate) is based on arguments while anthroposophy is revelational and authoritative at its core.
 * Several of Steiner's books, including his [[Philosophy of Freedom], are philosophy by any standard. They use standard philosophical methods of discussion and offer no revelations whatsoever. They are very rarely (but sometimes) dealt with in university courses, as Steiner is not generally considered an important philosopher in the academic world. Feel free to add a mention that his philosophical works are not valued by most academic philosophers, but please support this with more than my own impression.
 * Did you know that Steiner had a PhD in philosophy? That he is listed on the Earlham University list of philosophers, for example?
 * So what? Anthroposophy is still not philosophy.

4. The "critics of anthroposophy" section is laughable. There is a lot of real critical material around and it's not as if it's hard to find. I urge the editors to do their homework! See http://www.skepdic.com/steiner.html for a start.
 * The skepdic.com article you mentioned has always been cited on this page. I have looked about for more material; there is an article by a pharmacist, basketball coach and punk rock fan (Bendz) that is often cited, but there are six serious errors of objective fact in his short (one-page) article. The Stelling page has the same problems; Wikipedia standards explicitly say that pages with erroneous information should not be cited, nor should chat rooms, forums or other mail-in cites. Please add any serious critical references. Remember that Wikipedia standards are there to ensure that the article (and its links) are accurate.
 * Wikipedia standards don't seem to ensure anything. Not that I'm surprised.
 * Wow, that's the way to NPOV an article, dismiss any criticism as wrong and thus not worthy of citing!--Prosfilaes 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you suggest that we include errors of fact in Wikipedia articles to ensure that no one's opinion is left out? I am not talking about divergent opinions here; I am talking about the basic facts themselves being totally erroneous. The article in question averages significantly more than one demonstrably false statement per paragraph, which is pretty bad. Hgilbert 01:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

5. No mention of central occult "wisdom" such as the Ahriman demon that lives in your TV, reincarnation, karma, the not-so-PC "theory" of root races, astrology, the use of a pet's head in the preparation of biodynamic fertilisers etc. Gee, I wonder why...


 * Reincarnation and karma are mentioned in the site. No pet's head is used in the preparation of biodynamic fertilisers,
 * Mentioned very briefly. Pet's head: semantics. Pet, domestic animal, who cares? It's still completely looney and not mentioned in the article.


 * but see the article on biodynamic agriculture and feel free to add more (accurate) details of the biodynamic preparations there.
 * Steiner's complete works total about 330 volumes, 13 buildings, thousands of drawings and paintings and several sculptures.
 * Yes, and L Ron Hubbard wrote 50 million words. Who cares? Most of them were false.


 * Not all this can be discussed here. It would be good for something about spiritual beings to appear here; I will try to get to it (or someone else can do so). Incompleteness, especially in the case of such a vast corpus, is not a violation of POV, it is a sign that yet more could be done.


 * I recognize that you are concerned, but ask that you provide objective material to the article to balance it. POV checks are normally used where an effort to do so has been made but a balanced presentation is not possible (because of revert wars, for example). No one has removed any of your material; I don't believe you have added any, in fact. I am removing the POV check tag. I ask that you respond to the above remarks before adding it back.
 * Provide it yourself! It's your bloody responsibility as an editor.


 * I again urge you to register as a user if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia; this is generally considered good manners here.

Hgilbert 12:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I did register!


 * I will be back with more vitriol, believe me you!

If you have registered, than use four tildes (~) at the end of your contributions to sign and date them.

You assert that anthroposophy is not philosophy. Some areas of it (such as Steiner's philosophical work) are and are taught as such in bona-fide universities; I have already demonstrated that he is regarded as a philosopher by bona-fide academics. Have you ever read any of Steiner's philosophical works (Truth and Science, Goethe's Conception of the World, Philosophy of Freedom)? One glance at these would dispel the idea that they are not philosophical works.

I'm sorry that we disagree about the significance of quantum mechanics and the non-empirical nature of mathematics. Notable scientists and mathematicians agree with what I say here, such as Niels Bohr, Schrodinger, Anton Zeilinger, and Henri Poincaré. NPOV means that you cannot assert your own POV and deny other, accepted (and even majority) POVs.

I am happy to add more material to the article. The article on biodynamic agriculture already covers the biodynamic preparations in detail. A section on spiritual beings and more material on reincarnation could be added to the present article, and I am happy to do so. I repeat: the field is vast, and it is not a violation of neutrality to not have every aspect of a field covered.

If you will list what you feel is missing in terms of neutrality (not just completeness), including citations of references you wish to have added, I am happy to do the work of adding new material. Hgilbert 14:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Anthroposophy and science
There are many documented research results of anthroposophical science that have been confirmed by scientific testing. There are none that qualify as pseudosciences. In fact, there is a chair of anthroposophical medicine at the University of Bern!! Convince them to give up this chair before adding this category, please.


 * Name one, including peer reviewed references. Emanuel1972 07:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How about mistletoe extract as an agent against cancer, suggested by Steiner in the 1920s and developed by his co-workers at that time; since then further developed by an array of anthroposophical researchers. Peer-reviewed references include (I can only list a small sample here):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8) for background

NPOV
A 36k article on a controversial subject with a 1k criticism section that devotes more of its time to supporting the topic than the actual criticisms? How can that be NPOV?--Prosfilaes 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked for contributions to the criticism section that conform to Wiki policy, i.e. are not discussion lists or personal opinions. There has been no attempt to exclude these; rather the opposite. Please add appropriate material rather than assume that any POV has been pushed out. Hgilbert 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of personal opinions here, all Steiner's, and other positive opinions. Anything The criticism starts by listing [i]supporters[/i] of anthroposophy, a clear attempt to poison the well. "Natural science even includes non-sensory phenomena as the content of its study in the special case of mathematics. Is the number two purely non-sensory? What about 'i', the square root of negative one? Mathematics provides a doorway through which we can see how a scientific treatment of nonsensory phenomena may be valid." isn't an NPOV look at anything; it's a horribly POV argument for the subject. This is a horribly POV article in pretty much all ways. --Prosfilaes 19:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Anthroposophy, and therefore will include a lot of purely descriptive material on the subject. Steiner was the founder and hitherto most prominent voice of Anthroposophy; to describe the latter requires including his ideas. This article has been through a long period of development, but please suggest or execute improvements.

The Wikipedia Mathematics article begins by mentioning that mathematics is a non-empirical science. Is this a narrow POV? It is arguably simply a fact; mathematical truths are by and large not based upon sensory evidence, yet we can have confidence in them. Why can we have confidence in them? The answer to this question leads one into an epistemology of all science (knowing): that which is dependent upon logical reasoning applied to sensory data as well as that which is independent of sensory data (logic and mathematics). This line of reasoning does not represent a special POV, or rather, the point of view it represents is that of philosophers of science rather than applied science; the latter usually ignores the question of what we are doing when we do science and why it works).

I agree completely about the beginning of the criticism section and am happy to change it (and have done so). Hgilbert 21:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Mathematics doesn't say that mathematics is a non-empirical science. All the intro says about science is "Mathematics is used throughout the world in fields such as science, engineering, surveying, medicine, and economics." and "The word "mathematics" comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma) meaning science, knowledge, or learning...", neither of which say math is a science. In fact, there's a section called "Is Mathematics a Science" that says "Karl Popper believed that mathematics was not experimentally falsifiable and thus not a science" and "The opinions of mathematicians on this matter are varied. While some in applied mathematics feel that they are scientists, those in pure mathematics often feel that they are working in an area more akin to logic and that they are, hence, fundamentally philosophers." So a leading philosopher of science (Karl Popper) believes that math is not a science, as do many mathematicians.--Prosfilaes 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; my memory is at fault; it's the Science article that says:
 * The scope of this article is limited to the empirical sciences. For mathematical sciences, see mathematics.

That's exactly the point; that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable; that there exist truths independent of any external reality. Hgilbert 16:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But one line in science doesn't compare to a detailed discussion in mathematics. The identification of mathematics as a science is clearly controversial. --Prosfilaes 17:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have looked at one much quoted website's list of sites critical of anthroposophy. There are four links: Hgilbert 01:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) One claims to be in Swedish but is in any case a broken link.
 * 2) One is actually pro-Steiner (showing he was never a member of the OTO).
 * 3) One is the skeptics' dictionary, which has always been linked to from this article.
 * 4) The fourth is a web forum; Wiki policy is not to use web forums as sources or links for Wikipedia articles.


 * For what its worth the Popper remark in Mathematics is a recient and controversal addition, see Talk:Mathematics. We don't have a a good source for what Popper himself though of mathematics. I hope you guys don't beleive what you read in Wikipedia! --Salix alba (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the NPOV label; there is now an unusually extensive section of critical views. Hgilbert 14:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV is not about the presence or otherwise of a crticism section. I still suspect that there is POV in much of the article. It would be an error to remove the tag at this point. Jefffire 14:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is about the inclusion of multiple points of view. These are rather obviously being represented given the edit history of this article. There are widely divergent viewpoints contributing; the edits are supplementing, complementing and correcting one another (rather than reverting one another); there is no one whose edits are being suppressed. The tag is simply inaccurate and inappropriate; otherwise, concrete issues should be articulated.Hgilbert 00:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that is not what NPOV is about. Jefffire 00:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire: There are no actual issues that you or anyone else has detailed that have not been dealt with. Please either get concrete so any problematic passages can be corrected or stop adding the label; it is particularly difficult to understand your behavior when you admit that you know nothing about either of the subjects. Hgilbert 00:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A handful of particular POV concerns:
 * Criticisms section is badly writen
 * Many of the claims of the influence of Steiners work are dubious and not sourced.
 * Over whole article there is a general usage of POV terms to imply the Steiners weird beliefs are true.
 * Overall there are too many concerns to remove the tag. Jefffire 00:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to improve on the criticism section; note that it is actually quite difficult to find citable critical views (i.e. according to Wikipedia policy: no blogs, etc.).
 * Vis a vis sources: there is an extensive bibliography, but I have added a footnote with three specific sources (including Encyclopedia Brittanica) to the practical work section. *Are "believed", "said", "wrote" and the like POV terms? The article is quite consistent in using these and not claiming any of them are true or accepted.
 * I am generally a bit at a loss to follow what you are seeing that I am not; it doesn't help that you continue to be pretty unspecific ("over whole article", "overall", "many claims"). Perhaps one concrete example in each case would help. Hgilbert 00:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wording of section Practical work arising out of anthroposophy and conclusions vary from WP:NPOV and some references are not RS. Criticisms section remains a complete mess and is probably the biggest obstacle to removing NPOV tag at the moment. Jefffire 00:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)