Talk:Christian Science/Archive 3

Very large over-reliance on primary sources
There is a spectacularly large over-reliance on primary sources in this article including over 40 citations to "science and health" alone, and there are other books etc which are primary. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by primary sources. There are about 25 independent sources cited in the article, depending on how you define them. Since "Science and Health" is the CS textbook, it seems reasonable for citations to appear from it. (NB I had a look at the entry on "Darwin", and there are more than 40 references to writings by Darwin, from a quick count of the footnotes.)89.100.155.6 (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Christian Science has a complex theology and to give a fair outline of what Christian Scientists believe, quite a lot of their primary sources need to be cited. However, plenty of dissenting literature is cited as well. I don't know what IRWolfie means by 'spectacularly large'. If (s)he bases his/her opinion on numbers of citations, that falls to be rejected on the grounds that numbers of citations are a very poor measure of the article's 'reliance on primary literature'. To test this properly, we need to ask what the article aims to do. To me few recent editors have tried to do anything else but present an unbiased picture of what Christian Science is and what its adherents believe. The article does that, and does not rely on primary sources to do that; especially on the well-covered dissenting side. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a counter-proposal to demonstrate the reliance on primary sources. If I was to remove all primary sourced content we would be missing a chunk out of the article; do you agree or disagree? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's an unfortunate fact that many "secondary," "objective," "neutral" or "critical" sources actually distort the theology of Christian Science. One example is the "politically correct" habit of substituting "human" (or "human being") for "man" as used by Mary Baker Eddy (in the normal 19th century usage to denote members of both sexes). As "human" means something quite different from "man" for MBE, this distorts the meaning of the original. Is an inaccurate secondary source preferable to an accurate primary source? I don't think so.89.100.155.6 (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

See the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Under the definition of "Secondary Sources" it's by no means clear that Science and Health is in fact a primary source. According to this defiinition, it may in fact be a mixture of primary and secondary sources (eg when MBE writes about her own experiences it may be a primary source, when she writes about some other matters it may be a secondary source). Furthermore, it is accepted in these guidelines that primary sources may be used, and there is no specified limit as to their use.89.100.155.6 (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry but no, it is completely a primary source; you can confirm this at WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of material in the link you give, IRWolfie. I'm not sure what you're referring to in particular. Is a Bible commentary, or a Bible dictionary, a primary source? If not, the point can be made that considerable parts of Science and Health are in fact a kind of Bible commentary (eg the Chapters on Genesis and The Apocalypse, also the Glossary) and consequently a secondary source, at least insofar as the Bible is concerned. The point could therefore be made (admittedly from a CS perspective) that the Bible is the primary source and the CS textbook is a secondary source. Anyway, leaving that aside, the central point remains that there is no limit set by Wikipedia on the use of primary sources, apart from the point that an article should not consist purely of primary sources, which this one does not. Your point about an over-reliance on primary sources is consequently a purely subjective one.89.100.155.6 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My link is a noticeboard. It is where you can confirm that it's a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that one should post something there and wait for reactions? There are complicated and often inconclusive discussions on that board. And the possibility of coming across many people familiar with S&H seems somewhat remote. BTW, even in academia there is no conclusive definition of "primary source" since this differs from discipline to discipline. In philosophy, Kant's Critique of Judgement would be regarded as a primary source. In history, it could be a personal letter, an interview, or a newspaper report contemporary to the event. (E.g. Marx's "18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" might be regarded both as a primary and a secondary source, since it deals with both philosophy and history.) The issue is by no means as clear as you seem to believe. And to get back to the matter at hand, in this particular case (the entry on "Christian Science") replacing much of the primary material with secondary or tertiary material would arguably be a distinct disimprovement, since much of the secondary material is tendentious (on both sides) and often substantially inaccurate (particularly that in the "neutral" category).89.100.155.6 (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look at a couple of comparable articles, on "Lutheranism" and "Islam". There are numerous citations from Luther in the former, and from the Quran in the latter (both, presumably, primary sources). So there appears to be no recognized quota of desirable primary sources on Wikipedia, either in theory or practice. 89.100.155.6 (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's easy to identify a primary source, and this is one by the founder of the religion; WP:RSN is very capable, I'll post myself later. I doubt the Islam article is based primarly on the Quran; the primary sources are only meant to support the secondary. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, here are my main points again: (a) there is already a substantial body of secondary material referenced in the article; (b) there is no specified limit by Wikipedia to the number of primary sources that may be used in an article, or specific guidelines re the relative balance of primary/secondary sources; (c) even if it is desirable that the use of secondary sources be maximised vis a vis primary sources, the inaccurate nature of many of the secondary sources available in this area means that they are difficult to rely on, and must be constantly corrected with reference to the primary sources. However, there can (of course) be no objection to contributors entering material based on secondary/tertiary sources, and if anyone feels there should be more of them, they are free to enter them.89.100.155.6 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the number of sources that is the issue, it specifically is the over-reliance on the primary source, and that is a problem with WP:DUE weight and WP:FRINGE. Ideally, primary sources only ever augment the secondary sources, they do not form the basis of the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think your statement that "Ideally, primary sources only ever augment the secondary sources, they do not form the basis of the text" is dead on, but maybe not the way you think it is. Both Islam and Lutheranism, the examples that have been brought up, are far older religions than Christian Science and thus have a larger number of secondary analytic sources. Christian Science is relatively new and secondary sources tend to be advocative (on one side or the another) and not analytic which makes NPOV a bit of a problem. The effort has been -- for better or for worse -- to explicate Christian Science by going to the primary sources in lieu of sources which might advocate.

Too, your statement of "too much reliance" really is subjective. I don't think there is any metric of reliance that would apply to every article on Wikipedia. You have to evaluate each article on its own and not make unilateral decisions based on your subjective impression. By your own admission you're not an expert here.

That being said this article can certainly use help. There is way to much "Christian Scientese" here (which you have noted without realizing it) for it to be accessible to someone coming to the page for information. I would hope we could clear that up in a cooperative rather than contentious manner. Digitalican (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with ignoring the secondary sources, and relying on the primary sources; as that leads to original research. Not sure why expertise is relevant, I can identify reliable sources and work from them and so should everyone else. If the reliable secondary sources don't exist on some aspect, don't write about it, specifically see WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRINGE: "The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources". 100 years is plenty of time for sources to exist; and I've already seen many. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Expertise is relevant because it allows you to place a secondary source with respect to both the history and ideology of the subject matter. For Christian Science, as for almost any subject matter, there are many secondary sources which are advocacy sources parading under the banner of neutrality. It takes some experience and expertise to discern that. We can certainly see that issue with respect to Islam today. Again, your statement of "enough time" is a subjective evaluation of your own and not based on any metric. On what do you base it other than that you think 100 years is a long time (but not as long as 500 or 1300 years?) That's pretty arbitrary. Too, I suspect all the rule-play here has nothing to do with actually producing an informative article which ought to be our objective. Digitalican (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't take expertise to place sources; it sounds like you wish to engage in OR by selecting your sources according to preconceived ideas, that is not how wikipedia operates, we find the points most prevalent amongst the reliable secondary sources, giving particular weight to the most reliable sources such as secondary literature in scientific publications. In essence, wikipedia represents mainstream thought, see WP:FRINGE, as summarized in the nutshell: "the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear". Here is a suitable quote from your userpage to mull over: "I try to stay away from contributing to articles about which I know nothing or, worse, know enough to have a specific point of view. It's important here to be aware of your own blind spots." IRWolfie- (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll stand by the statement on the user page. I think you ought to as well given that you've decided Christian Science is a fringe science. How do you decide what is a "reliable" secondary source. That takes expertise which you (and possibly I) don't have. What is mainstream thought? Who decides that? These are all very subjective interpretations which are certainly only tenuously applied to religion. What is mainstream thought about Islam? What is mainstream thought about Lutheranism? These are not useful metrics for writing articles. Digitalican (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read our relevant policies: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR. Most of your questions are answered there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To add to what Dominus has stated, Don't speculate on what my opinions are as I have disclosed none. I didn't think or know much of anything about Christian Science before I saw this article. Also, Are you kidding? Deciding on reliability is precisely what we can do on wikipedia. Go tell the people at WP:RSN they can't judge what's reliable. It doesn't take an expert to realise that secondary sources in Nature (Journal) are reliable for science, or that secondary sources in the Lancet are reliable for medicine. And you certainly don't need a degree in Physics to spot the most reliable sources for physics; relevant well respected journals and academic publishers. What is mainstream or not is very easily decided; what viewpoint is most prevalent in reliable sources. I suggest reading WP:RS thoroughly, and particularly WP:IRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

All of your examples -- which are good by the way -- apply to areas of hard science. It's a little more difficult when you get to the soft sciences (psychology, sociology, economics, political science) and the like to discern reliability. In the case of religion (and do we agree that despite the use of Science in the name that Christian Science, like Religious Science, is a religion) I suspect it's almost impossible. We're not dealing with fact here, but entirely interpretation. Trust me, I have read the relevent sections of WP and while they are good guidelines they aren't written in stone. Digitalican (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No sorry, there is always methods of finding reliable secondary sources on a topic; it's a requirement of notability. Articles without reliable secondary sources with significant coverage get deleted per WP:GNG; they do exist. Read the guidelines, ask at WP:RSN if you aren't convinced. Also a religion can be pseudoscientific, there is nothing that precludes that. Astrology is a pseudoscience though some practitioners say it is a religion. Something which makes falsifiable claims but does not use the scientific method can be pseudoscientific. Much of this article only needs WP:MEDRS sources, and scientific sources. There is only some parts, such as the theology section which require suitable sources which are most likely neither of these. There are religious studies texts which are reliable etc etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion :-) I think part of the problem is the term "Christian Science" itself, which I've never been comfortable with btw and which leaves it open to misunderstanding and to attacks from skeptical sources. (See the discussion above in this section.) Anyway, that's the name and we are stuck with it. It should be noted that Mary Baker Eddy called it "Christian Science" at a time long before modern discussions in the philosophy of science (Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend etc.) and it clearly does not conform to the criteria of modern science in terms of falsifiability, testing, prediction etc (though there is a question as to whether other thought-systems that claim scientificity always do so either). It seems to be the name "Christian Science" that raises skeptical hackles more than anything else, and one can understand that. However, one should historically contextualize the title of a movement or institution before arguing that it makes inappropriate claims. I'm trying to think of an example to illustrate my point, but let's think for a moment of one of the illustrious colleges in Cambridge, England: Jesus College. It presumably acquired its name at a time when Christian teachings were mainstream in the academic community (indeed enforced in many cases with fire and sword). But I don't suppose there is much agitation out there by Christians that Jesus College is making inappropriate claims to Christianity, even if some--or perhaps even all--of the faculty/students there may not be Christians. Similarly, it is incorrect to charge Christian Science (or Christian Scientists) as not being in accordance with modern definitions of "science" simply because of the name, which was given by Mary Baker Eddy at a time when the term "science" had quite a different meaning from what it has today. Nobody, whether a Christian Scientist or not, believes that Christian Science healing can be subjected to the same kind of rigor that the physical sciences aspire to (though it is indeed common to come across the observation that medicine is more of an art than a science). Christian Science is more accurately described as a metaphysical system with (arguably) practical implications than as a "science" in any contemporary sense of the word. (As an afterthought, Feyerabend notoriously argued that there was no philosophically defensible way to distinguish astrology from mainstream science, but that's a whole other discussion!) BTW, could I suggest that anyone who wants to edit the article on Christian Science should at least read the CS textbook--for example if someone were going to edit the article on Islam, I imagine they would first familiarize themselves with the Quran!89.100.155.6 (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No sorry, but that is utterly wrong; editors of Islam probably don't read the quran, and it's stupid to require or expect it as it has little to do with editing the article. Most of this spiel is not directly related to your revert; your addition of material attacking mainstream science. You are calling Scientists who are writing about outbreaks amongst Christian scientists as "critics", They aren't critics, that is OR on your part. You have inserted synthesis, juxtaposing that with a primary sourced quote. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind not using language like "stupid" and "spiel"? For one thing, it doesn't conform to Wikipedia norms of politeness. (In fact, a lot of your intervention seems to rely on your own personal interpretations of Wikipedia requirements and conventions.) Thanks.89.100.155.6 (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

89.100.155.6: Do not feed the trolls. There is little dialog going on here. I had hoped there would be, but mostly what I see is rulemongering and proof through vigorous handwaving. I also detect a point of view here within the Wikipedia-defenced criticisms but I decline, for sanity's sake, to pull out the rulebook. This is one of the 'guerre du jour' that happens frequently on Wikipedia, has happened on these pages in the past and will pass as it always does. Meanwhile I will continue to edit (or edit anew) for style clarity and accuracy, trying to ignore and edit around the noise. Just make sure, as you have done, to always claim the high ground of politeness if you feel you need to argue. Digitalican (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have inserted OR into the article with your edits (see section below). If you insert content into an article, make sure it is supported by a reliable secondary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: IRWolfie- has called the cops (as if we were disruptive here) requesting semi-protection for this page. Certainly I've done this in the past myself, but only when there was major disruption and lack of reason. I think, at this point, it's just a bit of overreaction. Digitalican (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The IP is disruptive by continually inserting/removing material without policy based reasons, and without a policy based discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to take a look at WP:AGF. What the IP is doing is not disruptive in the sense that I have come to understand and experience it. While I am certainly not in favor of anyone hiding behind an IP address, I doubt it's being used to disrupt the editing of this page. Digitalican (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, let's take another angle on all of this. Sometimes there are only 'primary sources' for certain pieces of information. I imagine, IRWolfie, that as a physics Ph. D. student, you are familiar with the contributions of Marie Curie, the discoverer or co-discoverer of polonium and radium. Of course, all her scientific work, as well as that of her husband Pierre, is well covered in credible scientific literature and has been for the best part of a century. However, what is not so widely known, are details of her life: her childhood, her up-bringing, her family, early adult-hood and a description of her as a wife and mother. In fact, we have little more than one primary source for such deep family detail, and that is the account given by her daughter Eve in her classic novel, ‘Marie Curie’. Would you therefore consider it proper for the Wiki article on Marie Curie to omit all such detail because it comes mainly from a primary source for the Curie and Sklodowska families? I think not. So long as the article clearly specifies that the information comes from a primary source because we have few other, that would be fine.


 * In reply to my initial response to you some days ago, you ask if I’d agree that if the info based on all ‘primary sources’ were removed that a ‘big chunk’ of the article would go missing. If so, I suggest then that only what you call ‘primary sources’ are available to cover those areas of information. If there are other sources which the rest of us have missed, please add them. Don’t just tell the rest of us about it. Do some of this work yourself. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's YOUR job, and YOUR responsibility, per WP:BURDEN. You must accept that burden, not shirk and try to shift it on other editors. Furthermore, primary sources for religious topics are notoriously self-serving and unreliable. Comparing it to using extremely non-controversial biographical data from an autobiography is comparing apples and oranges. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No it’s not. WP:BURDEN states quite clearly that: “The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.” I have neither added nor restored citations in response to the edits in question. In any case, who says that ‘primary sources for religious topics are notoriously self-serving and unreliable’? This wouldn’t be some OR by you, by any chance, would it, Dominus Vobisdu? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If the secondary sources about a belief system give no coverage to a certain aspect of the belief system, then we should not give coverage. It is as simple as that. We have plenty of sources that describe Eddys early work, and plenty of sources that cover most aspects that I have seen. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is the point of difference between your stance and that of several other editors. I find nothing in the Wiki policies which suggest this as an immutable rule. If it were, we would be unable for example to give any detail of a myth or a legend, however significant. If your view is that Christian Science is just that; a conglomeration of myths, then simply edit the article to that effect, citing references accordingly. Such references could hardly be anything else but secondary.


 * I have contributed to Wikipedia for some seven years now, and my experience is that one will provoke strong reaction if one tries to discredit a whole lot of work by other authors. By adding tags and holding rigidly to Wiki policy statements, something which Wiki Policy warns against, you must expect a reaction.


 * Possibly a source of informational noise here, is the tacit belief that somehow we other editors own or were even responsible for the original article in some way. I certainly am neither, which is why I am mystified by Dominus Vobisdu’s reaction that fixing the faults you raise is somehow my onus. You are just another editor, along with the rest of us, who wants to see a better article, with the objective of giving our readers a more accurate and unbiased insight into the beliefs and practices of Christian Science. I therefore repeat my request that you edit where you find fault: but please don’t let all this get in the way of your studies! Michael J. Mullany (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. On the subject of Myths and legends, they are also covered in secondary sources. We don't need to source to the Táin Bó Cúailnge to describe the cattle raid of Cooley, we have plenty of secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * True, but there are many instances where they are not documented by secondary sources, but are of high significance. For example, the Zulu belief in witchcraft was successfully employed as an extenuating circumstance for murder and other crimes by courts long before such beliefs were anything more than verbal evidence. However, let's not get side-tracked in that direction. As I said, I was not the originator of the Christian Science article, but have merely sporadically edited it along with you and many others. I actually have looked for secondary sources that are credible, with little success. One example of a source I don't find credible, is the essay by Zindler entitled, “Mary "Faker" Eddy and the Cult of Christian Science”. The link to this article is: []. It seems to me that this is typical of non-Christian Science literature on Christian Science. As a fellow academic, I think you would agree that the writing is far too emotive to be credible from a scholarly point of view. However, this link has been kept in the article by all the editors; or at least ever since I took an interest several months ago now. This would hardly be the case if all of them prior to you, were Christian Scientists, or somehow pro Christian Science. They certainly are not. I repeat my request that you edit where you find fault; your time permitting, of course. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliability is dependent on what you do with it. This article from American Atheists magazine most likely has a number of reliable statements which can be used, it doesn't really matter if it's emotive as long as it is reliable. But, the link isn't used as a source anyway, it's used as an external link to criticism. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for repairing the link. It isn't used but has been kept; something I wouldn't have expected Chritian Science Crusaders to allow. OK,so do you want to edit the CS article based on statements in, and claims made by the Zindler article? I think that most current editors would accept a sincere effort in this direction, provided of course, that the usual guidelines are followed. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it as I expand the article. It is my intention to take this article to good article and beyond :) IRWolfie- (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

OR
OR added here:. Where does the text support The core of Christian Science theology is the "scientific statement of being" which asserts the spiritual nature of man.? Where is They believe that the recognition and understanding of the spiritual nature of reality allows for healing through prayer in the source? It also implies that there is a "spiritual nature of reality", an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. I've also removed some unsourced fringe OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

To say that someone believes something is an entirely different statement from saying that something is the case. It is entirely true that my five-year-old niece believes in the tooth fairy, and entirely false that the tooth-fairy exists.193.1.217.20 (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Whichever you choose, you still need a source that explicitly states the point. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy
I wrote as the source wrote with the mention of homeopathy. Don't revert edits based on them not agreeing with your personal interpretation. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The source is wrong, as anyone familiar with the Christian Science textbook will confirm. It's not my own personal interpretation. A secondary source should be assessed with reference to a primary source, not the other way around. That's one of the problems with secondary sources. If a secondary source said that Darwin believed in angels, and Darwin specifically denied that he believed in angels (eg in The Origin of Species, a primary source) then the secondary source is wrong, not Darwin193.1.217.20 (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, we defer to secondary sources. Also, "The highest attenuation of homoeopathy and the most potent rises above matter into mind. This discovery leads to more light. From it may be learned that either human faith or the divine Mind is the healer and that there is no efficacy in a drug." Your attempts to interpret the primary text to counter the secondary source, is OR. Ask in WP:NORN if you disagree. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it constitutes OR. In fact, the quote you give from S&H is a clear refutation of the secondary source. Although MBE is using the "dematerialisation" process within homeopathy to support the argument that drugs have no efficacy (apart from human belief), the concept of a divine Mind has nothing to do with homeopathy afaik. (Admittedly, it may may be difficult to grasp the subtleties involved if you haven't read the CS textbook)193.1.217.20 (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ask in WP:NORN, they will confirm that your reasoning is original research. We don't use analysis of primary sources to refute secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This becomes more and more twisted: You are saying, for the record, that when any secondary source contradicts a primary source that the secondary source is to be preferred even if the primary is clear and unequivocal? As far as OR is concerned, the difference between Original Research and Undocumented Assertion is a fine line, one which I don't believe has been crossed yet. It's easy enough to use either of these as a cudgel to hammer things you don't like. My Original Research may be your assertion of well-known fact. Ultimately, we get into the discussion of what is the word "is" without documentation.

My understanding of the various WP:* is that they are guidelines rather than a rulebook. We drag them out when there is a dispute in an effort to help resolve that dispute, not use them to bully a contributor into doing things the way we want. I may be wrong about this. I've certainly used WP:OR to bully someone into redacting a statement, probably wrongly. I have also seen (and used) Roberts Rules or Order to manipulate and control a debate. Digitalican (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @IP and Digitalican: In WP, articles are based on what independent (third-party) experts report about the topic in independent reliable secondary sources. For the purpose of this article, this means that the article should be based on mainstream scholarship in religious studies, theology, sociology, history, science and medicine, published in real academic sources.


 * We cannot base our articles on what MBE herself wrote, or on "in-universe" material published by the church itself (though we can use such material to support and illustrate what the independent secondary sources say, as long as we do not violate WP:NOR).


 * As hard as it may be for you to comprehend, we do not, nor can not, consider MBE or the church itself reliable experts on Christian Science. Whether a given scholar on the topic is a member of the church or not is immaterial, as long as they hold to recognized mainstream scholarly standards and publish in recognized mainstream scholarly publications.


 * Our policies are very clear about that, and a major problem with this article is that it is based very heavily on primary sources, to the point where much of it constitutes original research. Again, thoroughly read and understand our key policies and guidelines: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR.


 * IRWolfie is correct that it is OR to conclude that a secondary source is in error because it conflicts with a primary source. As WP editors, we have no right to interpret primary sources for ourselves. We rely on real scholars. And for an article like this, abundant reliable independent scholarly secondary sources certainly exist. Your time would be better spent finding those sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, your statement "the various WP:* is that they are guidelines rather than a rulebook" is greatly in error. The core policies are non-negotiable, and are pretty much set in stone. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, to highlight this statement that policies are "guidelines rather than a rulebook". The intent of the policies (note they are Policies and not guidelines) is non-negotiable; sometimes there may be an issue with the exact wording of a policy, but ignoring the wording is only to accord with the intent of the policy. In this case, the intent of the policies is very clear. If you aren't sure, ask on the relevant talk page or noticeboard. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That's kinda not what it says on WP:PG. Digitalican (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Kinda? Did you read WP:PG? Specifically PG. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Then read it again, and WP:CCC, on which it heavily relies. I've actually seen editors invoke WP:PG as you do before at ANI, to no avail. Read policies to understand them and the principles behind them, not to justify your position. That will only get you in trouble, and possibly topic banned or indefinitely blocked. Also, be aware that the fuse is especially short for topics related to pseudoscience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: Assuming that this is the relevant source of the rules, there is no prohibition on the use of primary sources on Wikipedia. They should be used with care, they should not be over-used, etc. But they are not prohibited.89.100.155.6 (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No. The policy is a lot more restrictive than you believe. There are cases where primary sources can be used, but they are quite exceptional, and they are indeed forbidden in most circumstances. I'm quoting the policy belw for your perusal:


 * Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.


 * The issue here involves saying that a secondary source is in error based on YOUR reading and interpretation of the primary source. That is a big no-no, and is expressedly forbidden by the policy quoted above.


 * As I said before, primary sources can be used to support and illustrate what the secondary sources say, and, to a limited extent, the personal opinions of the writer about themselves. Otherwise, in an article like this, independent scholarly secondary sources are far superior. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I will highlight and add to that by highlighting some relevant parts of the policies and guidelines:
 * WP:FRINGE: Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research.
 * WP:FRINGE: The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources.
 * WP:PRIMARY: Policy: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.
 * WP:SYN Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.
 * IRWolfie- (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to bow out of this discussion (and from the editing) for the time being. I've been giving too much time to this and neglecting my work in the real world. While there is undoubtedly a need for more secondary sources in the article, there is also a subjective interpretation of the guidelines going on imo. Also the humorless and dogmatic tone of some of the comments gets up my nose. Have a nice day.89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert
I didn't remove any sourced material in this edit:. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Science
Christian Science claims to be a form of science, your OR contradicts the claims made by Christian Science that it is in fact a form of science. Do not remove the statement that it is pseudoscience from the lead; per WP:FRINGE the mainstream position is expected to be prominent. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Odd Sourcing
The paragraph:

"In "Mind Underlies Spacetime: An Idealistic Model of Reality," Daniel A. Cowan offers a philosophical explication of some Christian Science teachings.[7]"

...is completely without context. Who is this Daniel Cowan fellow and why does someone looking for information about Christian Science care that he wrote a book? How is this person or his book notable? Is he a critic? Is he a member of the religion? What does the book say about the religion? What are some of the 'philosophical explications' it offers...? TricksterWolf (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Article POV
Truly bizarre. This whole article is muddled and disorganized. Half of the short "Theology" section is about criticism of CS rather than beliefs, which makes it hard to follow. I have a hard time believing there aren't any experts on CS on Wikipedia who could shed a little light on this. I mean, these guys run a national newspaper or something, so they must be around here somewhere. TricksterWolf (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, this has been in the article for some time. I am in the process of clarifying things in the article, what philosophers and theologians say etc. Some of the theology criticism is unsourced.IRWolfie- (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The behaviour of Christian Scientists is governed to a degree by Mary Baker Eddy's 'Manual of the Mother Chruch', which forbids them from the public debating of Christian Science. This may help explain why few in the organisation or one of the organisations, involves themselves with debates over the wiki article. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is a bit of a mess in its present form...until recently it was fairly well-balanced, also highly-rated as far as I remember...now it reads kind of like a collection of attacks on its subject. And since when did Mr Randi and Mr Nickel become the source of unquestionable truth about what is a science and what is not a science? Apparently Christian Science doesn't think highly of science, so it calls itself a science in order that people will think highly of it. Right...some logic there...(not)...GruessGott (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you even read the article? James Randi and the Committee for Skeptical inquiry etc are very reliable for what is a pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, reliable from your POV. The article is mostly POV. It needs a complete re-editing, and a lot more neutrality. I did read it btw, and its not very informative about Christian Science. Its informative about what some people, who are not Christian Scientists, think that Christian Science is. But a lot of the time such people get it wrong. Most people who know anything about Christian Science would agree with me, I think. Even someone who is maybe no longer a member of the CS church, but actually knows what the teachings are. Even if perhaps they don't agree with them any more.GruessGott (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So in essence what you want is to hear what Christian Scientists say about Christian Science? Sorry but wikipedia works from the neutral point of view and uses academic sources etc where available. We don't make articles from primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think what GruessGott is trying to say is that the article currently takes a point of view from the people who are critical of Christian Science while at the same time knowing nothing about Christian Science, and that this -- coming from a position of some ignorance -- cannot be a truly neutral point of view. I also very much agree with IRWolfie that the article should not simply be about Christian Science by Christian Scientists.  Surely there is a way that we can find of improving the neutrality of POV and making the article more informative in a factual way about Christian Science without violating Wikipedia's primary source guidelines.  One thing I might suggest is that secondary sources from within the set of Christian Science publications not be automatically disallowed.  (I stress automatically, by consensus some or all might be disallowed.)


 * (I started a new section after the fact here so that it would be easy see what the discussion was about.) Digitalican 20:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * For the theology I am sure there must have been Christian Scientists who have published their work in mainstream journals and through mainstream publishers. But for Medicine and Science we look to the reliable medical and scientific sources, for history we look to the history sources etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Primary sources can only be used to support and illustrate what reliable independent sources say. we can't use them to "balance" the article.
 * We bump into two problems with primary sources, not only with Christian Science, but with any religion. The first is that they are often in-universe, that is, they are not considered authoratative, significant or reliable outside of the movement. The second is apologetics. Sources like these are not useful for creation an encyclopedia where original research is not allowed. Material in primary sources has to be evaluated and interpreted by independent scholars. We rely on them to separate the wheat from the chaff. We can't do that ourselves.
 * An independent source could be written by someone who is a member of the movement, and would be reliable if it has passed real-world academic review. The constraits of academic review ensure that the writer is acting as a scholar, and not as a advocate of the religion. All the more so if the material mentioned in the source has been cited by other independent scholars in reliable sources.
 * As far as material pertaining to history, science and medicine, the sourcing should be of the highest quality possible. An exception of sorts for fringe and pseudoscience material is WP:PARITY, which allows us to present the material in the context of mainstream scholarship when high quality sources don't exist for this purpose.
 * So, in order for a primary source ro be used, we have to determine whether indepedent scholars evaluated the source in the past and have used it in their own discussion of the material in question. We must rely on their judgement and interpretation of the material. The problem with the article until recently is that it was essentially original research based on primary sources, the reliability of which we could not determine.
 * Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place to give proponents of a theory/religion/movement/school of thought the opportunity to present themselves in their own words first. That would be apologetics and self-promotion. We present them as they are described by reliable independent secondary sources. Unfortunately, primary sources published by religious groups are often self-serving to the point that they cannot be trusted by anyone outside of the group. IRWolfie's caution is therefore well justified.
 * Last of all, few or now reliable sources are available for many small religious groups, which means that we simply cannot write an article on them at all. Christian Science, however, surely has been discussed in reasonable detail in reliable secondary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"Sources like these are not useful for creation an encyclopedia where original research is not allowed." "So, in order for a primary source ro be used, we have to determine whether indepedent scholars evaluated the source in the past and have used it in their own discussion of the material in question." "Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place to give proponents of a theory/religion/movement/school of thought the opportunity to present themselves in their own words first. That would be apologetics and self-promotion. We present them as they are described by reliable independent secondary sources. Unfortunately, primary sources published by religious groups are often self-serving to the point that they cannot be trusted by anyone outside of the group." The problem is, that these are simply your opinions. They may have merit in themselves (as an ideal to aim for) but there is no justification for imposing them as absolute rules, either here or anywhere else. They are your own interpretations of the Wikipedia rules. They are not the rules themselves (as far as I can make out). In othere words, they are original research on your part. One example is, that you are setting more stringent rules for religion than for most other areas, since Wikipedia articles on other areas frequently have primary sources, of one kind or another. So you start off from the basis that the religious perspective must be, by definition, more questionable that others. That may well be true, but it's simply your opinion. The main point I want to make here is: if original research should not be in the article, it should also not be applied to interpreting the Wikipedia rules by editors. BTW, there are about dozen sources remaining in the article, that are not peer reviewed in the conventional sense, or probably not anyway. Should these be removed as well? In any case the definition of peer review is by no means clear-cut. Peer review may be double-blind by referee. It may be by an editorial panel. It may be by an editor who is expert on the subject, and also there are new forms of "public" peer review appearing. Indeed, peer review itself is not always agreed by the academic community to be useful, either in keeping garbage out or letting good stuff in. Sometimes, one has to actually cut out good stuff, and put in useless and irrelevant material, to get an article through the double-blind peer review process, simply because some anonymous reviewer has a bee in his or her bonnet about something or other. (I've been there and I know, but the situation may differ from discipline to discipline.)GruessGott (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What counts as peer review, primary sources etc is very clear cut on wikipedia. None of the issues here are even slightly ambiguous, read the relevant policies and guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Original Sin
The statement "Christian Scientists do not view themselves as having original sin" (in the first paragraph of the Theology section) is not only technically inaccurate (Although Christian Science does not believe in original sin, that belief applies to everyone, not just to themselves) it is also unsupported by the reference unless through interpretation or OR. I've read the entire chapter on Christian Science, where the referenced page should lie, and find no clear statement concerning Christian Science and original sin. Digitalican 13:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalican (talk • contribs)


 * As I said before, the article, in the form it is now taking, is something of a mess. I would not attempt to edit an article about quantum mechanics (or indeed about anything else) without having a basic personal knowledge of the topic. One cannot edit an article about a topic like Christian Science without having a basic knowledge of the Christian Science theology/philosophy at first hand, indeed from the "primary sources." (Whether one agrees with the teachings or not, is a completely different matter.) And that is no matter how closely one adheres to the Wikipedia rules/guidelines. It would be a bit like trying to fly an aeroplane with no flight training or experience, but with very close reference to the flight manual. (The plane will no doubt crash, but the pilot can take comfort in the fact that every procedural rule was followed.)GruessGott (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You appear to have confused wikipedia with nupedia. This kind of special pleading that only Christian Scientists and ex-members can edit has no place on wikipedia, wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia for anyone to edit. As an aside, editors who edit Christianity aren't expected to have read the bible, because we rely on secondary sources, it isn't necessary. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was going with the text; ""Therefore let us remember most clearly that Christian science offers a dual christ, a great man inspired by the "Christ idea" as Mrs. Eddy would have it, one who never really "died" at all for our sins." Substitutionary atonement would have been more correct. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Substitutionary atonement is, indeed, more accurate and does not necessarily imply original sin. Christian Science does not believe in Substitutionary atonement or in atonement, in the standard christian parlance, at all (they do have their own definition which is closer to the moral influence theory of atonement.) Nor do Christian Scientists believe they are elect in any sense. I'll let you correct the statement. Digitalican (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see you already have made a correction. My bad. Excellent! Digitalican (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that "only Christian Scientists and ex-members can edit." What I said was, that what is needed is "a basic knowledge of the Christian Science theology/philosophy at first hand." One can obtain that, admittedly, by being a Christian Scientist (or an ex-Christian Scientist). But one can also obtain it simply by reading the Christian Science textbook and the rest of the Christian Science literature, whether one ends up agreeing with it or not. Whether one is (or was) a Christian Scientist is not the point. One can read the CS textbook without agreeing with it, and without even thinking about joining an organization. Let me give an analogy to substantiate the argument, that people should first become familiar with Christian Science (or anything else) before intervening as editors. The analogy is as follows. I personally wouldn't attempt to edit the Wikipedia article on quantum mechanics. There are a number of reasons for that. One is that I don't have enough of a maths/physics background. Another is because I'm not familiar enough with the primary sources (eg the writings of Heisenberg, Schroedinger etc. and the details of the experimental literature). It's true that I've read a considerable amount of "secondary" literature on quantum mechanics (sometimes written by reputable scientists like Paul Davies and David Bohm--though maybe that makes it "primary" by some definition??) Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that I don't personally know enough about qm to distinguish as clearly as I would want to, between useful scholarly interpretations on the one hand, and nonsense on the other hand. (This is the case, whether the nonsense might consist of weird flights of new age fancy; or at the opposite extreme, hidebound resistance to anything new.) Nor would I consider myself capable of saying, with any convincing voice, whether (eg) the Copenhagen interpretation, or the many-worlds interpretation, of qm is correct. (I have my own personal views on that, but modesty--not to mention lack of a strong scientific background--would forbid me from airing them on Wikipedia.) If I were to attempt to edit the article on quantum mechanics, I would probably end up making a mess of it, because I simply don't know enough about the subject to contribute anything very useful. The article would probably end up worse than it was, so I wouldn't even start. On the other hand, it would be possible, though difficult, for me to learn enough about qm (eg by taking courses in maths/physics, doing a lot of reading and becoming familiar with the basic texts, so that I could cast aside my modesty and intervene on the editorial side, being at that point in a position to make an informed judgement, regarding the relative merits of the secondary literature. And I might not even agree with quantum mechanics after doing all that reading. (Btw I believe Einstein had a serious problem with qm at one point.) But I would know enough about it in order to be able to contribute constructively to an article on the topic. Anyway, I'm probably laboring the point, but I hope I have made it clearly enough. Of course, one does not need anything like the same amount of technical knowledge to understand Christian Science theology/philosophy than one needs to understand quantum mechanics. (That is, of course, if anyone really understands qm). But the principle is the same.GruessGott (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are improving the quantum mechanics article and you rely on primary sources by Schrodinger and Dirac etc, then you aren't doing it right. Scientists don't rely on original works because scientific progress makes them not reflect the current progress, and it's much more effective to get the information from a textbook, which can often explain it in a better way than the other scientists originally did. There is not necessarily anything special about the original paper. Any reasonably intelligent adult can easily read the Christian Science article with few prerequisites, while the quantum mechanics article has numerous prerequisites in some parts. That said, there are plenty of sections any editor can edit easily, such as Quantum_Mechanics, Quantum_Mechanics, Quantum_Mechanics and Quantum_Mechanics. Editors can also edit the other sections providing they are careful and stick to the reliable secondary sources. On wikipedia we assume the readers are intelligent but ignorant (lacking in knowledge), the same can apply to editors, as long as you are intelligent, even if ignorant, there is no issue with editing most articles. You can't read a book which describes quantum mechanics and decide if you agree with quantum mechanics, it's a scientific theory; it is only by looking at the evidence or by performing independent experimental verification that you can decide. A part of any physics course is doing experiments and testing the theories. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether they gain the knowledge from primary or secondary (or tertiary) sources is not the issue. Anyone trying to make a root-and-branch overhaul of the article on quantum mechanics, without a broadly accurate understanding of what quantum mechanics is (however they have acquired the knowledge) would, almost inevitably, make a mess of it. Similarly, anyone attempting to make a root-and-branch overhaul of the article on Christian Science, without a broadly accurate understanding of what Christian Science is (however they have acquired the knowledge) would almost inevitably make a mess of it as well. You state: "Any reasonably intelligent adult can easily read the Christian Science article with few prerequisites, while the quantum mechanics article has numerous prerequisites in some parts." That's not the point: the point is whether the person understands either of them well enough to be able to make radical editorial interventions that would add to the reader's understanding, rather than detracting from the reader's understanding. If much of the secondary literature on quantum mechanics were, as much of the secondary literature on Christian Science is, either in-house apologia by entrenched interests, or hostile (and often biased and inaccurate) attacks by scientific skeptics (at one end of the scale) and Christian fundamentalists (at the other), in that case one would have no alternative but to go to the primary sources in order to be able to evaluate fairly the secondary/tertiary sources.GruessGott (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, comparing Christian Science to Quantum Mechanics is not a good comparison, it's apples and oranges. A better comparison is to Scientology. One can easily edit either article without in depth knowledge. This happens with nearly every topic; non-experts frequently make them. It's not an issue because we rely on secondary sources and we do no original research on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it's apples and oranges. You have made the a priori decision--apparently without any first-hand knowledge of Christian Science--that (perhaps because of the name) it is, ipso facto, in a different category from some other topics, and therefore that a particular editorial policy may apply to Christian Science, but not to other kinds of article. And in fact, I don't know enough about Scientology, to attempt a radical overhaul of the Wikipedia article on Scientology either. I certainly wouldn't attempt to do so without familiarizing myself, not only with the secondary/tertiary material on Scientology, but also with the writings of the founder. (As a matter of fact, in the interest of open-mindedness I have actually read some of the writings of Mr Hubbard, and found them somewhat more interesting than the secondary material I had come across might suggest. Even so, my fairly basic knowledge of Scientology means that I am in no way competent to do a radical overhaul of the Wikipedia article on the subject.) I think we are down to a discussion, not of editing per se, but of degrees of editing. Because, when I come to think of it, and maybe this contradicts something I said before but it's really just clarifying the basic point I'm trying to get across: I might indeed do a bit of editing on the QM article (or the Scientology article) maybe add a link here or a comma there, or straighten out a bit of grammar or whatever. But in no way would I have the presumption to do a radical overhaul of an article on a topic I knew little or nothing about, whether it was QM, Scientology or anything else.GruessGott (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have knowledge of Christian Science both from Ms Eddy's writings and some further CoC,S published works, and some secondary literature (encyclopedias and compendia of Christianity, theology, religions, etc.), although I've never known it "at first hand", and I've worked (more accurately, debated or argued) with IRWolfie before, and I found myself here correcting the error in substitutionary atonement (which is absent from Eastern Christianity, and prevalent only in Protestantism, Catholicism going with satisfactionary atonement, which, while superficially similar, is different, and has much different implications for soteriology as a whole) to the broader "general historic Christian ideas of the atonement (wl:Atonement in Christianity)" or something similar, so I'd be willing to lend a hand here, with all aspects, fact-checking/doctrine, referencing, other views, flow of thought, etc. Also, Wolfie is pretty much right on editing. If you get a book on QM, and don't understand any of it, you can parrot enough of it to add a sentence or two of value to an article with a ref. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 10:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And, of course Christian Science claims to be a science - department of redundancy department. Look at the name. Look at the name of the basic text, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures; it claims to be above all a medical science in its application. As Wolfie will remember, I'm a creationist, but creation science, according to the scientific consensus, is pseudoscience, and Wikipedia isn't written from my beliefs, or those of creation scientists, and Wikipedia articles on science aren't written with reference to theology, but from reliable scholarly sources. As much as I believe "pseudoscience" is inaccurate in that situation, it is the correct term (not that I necessarily believe "science" is any more accurate: maybe "metascience" or "metaphysics" or "theology"). Likewise, as much as devotees of homeopathy, chiropracty, Christian Science, etc. etc. may believe theirs is a science, the reliable scholarly sources overwhelmingly denote it pseudoscience. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 10:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of the term Science
These comments are at this point OR and/or undocumented, so take it all with a grain of salt. I am not at this point arguing against the term pseudoscience as an appellation for Christian Science, but simply pointing out that the term Christian Science can be in some sense interpreted in at least two ways.

Even Wikipedia's own article on science documents at least two ways in which the term can be used. First as the study of cause and effect with application of some form of scientific method as in Physical Science or Chemical Science. Second as the study of a systematized body of knowledge such as Library Science or Political Science (to be fair modern political science and the other social sciences at least give lip service to the notion of testable hypothesis.  Library Science and Information Science are a bit different.)  The assertion that Christian Science claims to be a science, which is accurate, has different meaning depending on which kind of science Christian Science claims to be. Again, this is only conjecture without documentation. Can, however, Library Science or Information Sciences be classified as pseudosciences?

That Christian Science's use of the term "science" in its own name is an effort to claim the legitimacy of science is not in dispute. The question is what kind of science is it claiming to be: the modern hypothesis testing form of science or the older aggretaive form. The rigorous discipline of what we now know as science was still in development during the 19th century when Christian Science was founded and named. Is it incumbent on the religion to rename itself (as Religious Science has done) in the face of the evolution of the scientific method? Should it be held accountable for having not renamed itself? Did Christian Science start out as simply the study of an accumulated body of knowledge and then evolve into a pseudoscience as modern science developed? Certainly, in its time, in reacting to the growth of Mesmerism and Animal Magnetism (terms still used in Christian Science parlance) it was more mainstream than it is today.

Christian Science, unlike Scientology which -- if I understand it correctly -- is a purely invented system of belief, grew out of a 19th century intellectual soup of science and what would today be called pseudoscience. Most of the advocacy going on here loses track of that historical background. Medicine in the 19th century was not that far removed from the theories Humorism and Medicine of Paracelsus. Is it accurate, in the historical sense, to so label it? Digitalican (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that Christian Science is a science, certainly in the present-day sense of the term--it's a metaphysical system with (claimed) practical implications, not a science like biology or physics, that have rigorous experimental procedures. I think Digitalican hits the nail on the head: the term "science" has changed in popular parlance, while the term "Christian Science" has remained unchanged. The application of the term "pseudoscience" to Christian Science, consequently involves a purely synchronic take on the situation, ignoring the diachronic/historical perspective. Christian Science is not a pseudoscience any more than Methodism or Roman Catholicism is a pseudoscience--it's the name of a particular religion, a name that needs to be understood in its 19th C historical context, not judged according to today's standards where the definitions of science have evolved. A Christian Scientist working in biology would have no problem with the theory of evolution, and a Christian Scientist working in geology would have no problem with the possibility that the earth may be billions of years old. I am sure adherents of Christian Science working in the natural sciences, are as capable of sticking rigorously to approved norms of scientific method in their work, as anyone else is. To imply that Christian Scientists must be adherents, or proponents, of pseudoscience because they belong to a religion with a particular name, is absurd. To give an analogy, the area of inquiry that is now called "science" used to be encompassed under "philosophy." There may be organizations still extant (though I can't think of any offhand) that do science, but that describe themselves as philosophical rather than scientific. Would it be appropriate for philosophers to call them pseudo-philosophical, because they are not doing what it says in the name, as the latter is currently understood? Is a person a pseudo-Protestant because they are not currently protesting against anything? Is an atheist a pseudo-Christian because they are a member of a college with a Christian title? I don't think so. What is needed is a more historical and a less literalist perspective.GruessGott (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is also my analysis of the situation. I certainly wouldn't try and brand the Catholic practice of verifying miracles before canonising a dead person as a saint, as a pseudoscience. Likewise, Methodists believe in healing through prayer, and I wouldn't brand that a pseudoscience either: not even if I believed such things to be scientifically impossible. Christian Science is, and has always claimed itself to be, a religion. Also, we are probably not getting more practicing Christian Scientists involved in the debate because Mary Baker Eddy's 'Manual of the Mother Church' explicitly forbids their membership from publically debating Christian Science. Some of us need to take cogniscence of this a bit more in our deliberations, and understand that they are not likely to react publically to harsher criticisms of their faith. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Science was well defined by the 1800s. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Some Serious Weirdness in Article
"Typically these testimonies, which include nothing but a vague description, are done by non-doctors making the diagnosis." I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. A testimony is normally "given", not "done", in any parlance that I'm familiar with. And is there any serious reason to believe that a testimony would normally be given by a doctor, as this wording seems to imply? Is the sentence supposed to mean that the testimonies are typically checked by non-doctors who make the diagnosis? (I presume that's the intended meaning, but if so, why doesn't it say that?) There are some other weird formulations in the article but I haven't time to correct them now--and it's sometimes not clear whether they are in the original text cited (to which I don't have access) or merely a misinterpretation by an editor of this article--so it's hard to know how to make a correction. At this point I've tried to correct some obvious writing mistakes and also to introduce some much-needed balance. (This used to be a good article, at one time.)GruessGott (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This article was never good. It used to be complete rubbish and violated pretty much every policy there was. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion. It's a mess at the moment: that's my opinion. Anyway, could you keep to the substantive issue; ie what is the quoted sentence supposed to mean?GruessGott (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've clarified the sentence. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of References
I am finding it is important to fact check the reliable sources used to document this page. The actual statements in the sources are often subtly different than implied in their reference. For example, The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience says that Mary Baker Eddy compared herself to Columbus and Copernicus, implying she thought of herself as a pioneer and explorer but the citation only refers to the comparison to Copernicus, allowing the reader to infer that she thought of herself as a groundbreaking scientist. (To be fair, she may have, but that's not what the original source implies.) Digitalican (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Read the very next sentence, and the preceding sentence in the source. They are specifically talking about the history of science. They then mention a list of scientists, including Copernicus. You are inferring about explorers, when the context doesn't support that.


 * Be careful with going to close to a source, it can be plagiarism. You copy and pasted in "as illusory, and thus relatively unimportant". I paraphrased the text to be different for that reason. Not sure where you are reading about "hard science" at. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not plagiarism if a sentence fragment and attributed (as you have,) the specific sentence is "the Christian Science church has rejected physics and other sciences as illusory, and thus relatively unimportant." I can put it in quotes if you like, which makes it a more acceptable reference.

You aren't accurate on the second part of the reference either. It reads: "Eddy often compared herself to Columbus and Copernicus and [Dr. Lawrence] Doyle follows in this vein.  After discussing the discoveries of Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein, Doyle (1992) states"...  Your reference specifically points to those Mary Baker Eddy compared herself with, not who Lawrence Doyle (who never even knew Eddy) says she should be compared with. Are you asking to admit Doyle (a known Christian Scientist and visiting lecturer at The Principia) as a verifiable source? Digitalican (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously, don't add sentence fragments to articles as you did, close paraphrasing of this sort is plagiarism. The text beforehand is sufficient, copying and pasting from sources with quote when you just don't need to is pointless, particularly when we have no reason not to paraphrase things properly. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page: "Understood." While I don't agree technically that it is plagarism, we can put it in quotes if you like to avoid that problem. I think my original observations stands. I refuse to get into an edit war with you. You are more experienced and I am more mature than to get into that. There is a point of agreement and accuracy here than I think we can both come to, OK? Digitalican (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not clear who is being quoted. It's unnecessary quotations and wouldn't fit with the WP:MOS. Adding attribution would effectively reduce neutrality by unnecessarily attributing something which doesn't need to be, and make the mainstream position is only held by one author instead. The current text is fine. Quotes should only be used when they are relevant; if we were quoting a famous person about Christian Science for example, we may want to include his or her actual words. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The attribution is already in place, was not added (and has not been removed.) You put it there. You cited it as evidence for the mainstream position. I only checked your reference and found that there was a possible misinterpretation, or at least that it didn't say exactly what you reported. The close wording to the original citation was within the guidelines of WP:PARAPHRASE (if the attribution was retained) and seemed appropriate, but the original citation was yours.

It is the same with Eddy's comparing herself to Columbus and Copernicus. Searle gets that from S&H pp 120-121 (I'm not sure that's "often" but I'm not here to impeach Searle. The statement is essentially factual.) Searle goes on to report that Doyle compared Mary Baker Eddy to other scientists, but what Doyle said is not at issue here. Now, if we were to extract from Searle that Mary Baker Eddy would compare herself to Columbus it lends itself to a different interpretation that saying that Mary Baker Eddy compared herself to Copernicus. It seems to me that the way to more accurately reflect what Searle says is to include them both. Digitalican (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think I'm doing original research ask at WP:NORN. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not said that nor do I think I have implied it. As I said on my talk page the line between OR, misinterpretation and disagreement is fuzzy and I'm not convinced it has been crossed yet. This discussion is about the text in a specific citation that you brought to the page. I think it's not accurate but I don't think inaccuracy is the same as Original Research (or to do so would be to assume bad faith on your part.) Digitalican (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Who is Searle? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Shermer. This is what happens when you multitask on and off Wikipedia. :)  Actually it's Miller, author of the essay "Christian Science as Pseudoscience" in The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience who is the most immediate author of the reference. Michael Shermer is the editor.  Digitalican (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

...and another. Gale's Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics does not say that "Religions such as Christian Science have attempted to capitalize on the high regard in public opinion for Science in general." (first paragraph, Medicine and Science Section) What it actually says is that "In a culture in which science is given high status —- indeed, this is said to be an age of science —- one would expect [italics mine] political theories (scientific socialism), religions (Christian science, scientology, creation science), and even literature (science fiction) to try to associate themselves with science. Precisely for this reason attempts to define the boundaries of science and pseudoscience and to distinguish pseudoscience from mistaken science or not fully accepted science raise ethical as well as epistemological issues." Digitalican (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't add the text originally. I'll have a look at it. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you did. I'm simply reference checking the sources I can easily get to at this point, then checking the secondary sources against primary sources I have available. I'm pondering whether the "epistemological issues" mentioned in Gale aren't the pre-modern science issues discussed in the collapsed section above, but full well realize I would have to document that case clearly with secondary sources. Digitalican (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Dr. Schrager would be very surprised to find herself quoted in this context, but it stands. The sentence fragment "...functioned as oppositional discourses with contradictory results" is only ambiguously interpretable outside of context. I suggest "opposes" rather than "is oppposed to" as closer to what is meant. The paraphrase of Martin/Schermer is well within the guidelines of WP:PARAPHRASE and is closer to the original text as is the reference to Columbus discussed above. Digitalican (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, your paraphrasing is completely inadequate. Stop replacing text that is sufficiently paraphrased with insufficiently paraphrased text. Particularly when it's for no good reason. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please explain to me how the paraphrasing is inadequate. If "...functioned as oppositional discourses with contradictory results" clearly means is opposed to (rather than provides an opposing view) I don't see it. The other changes are, again, provably closer to the original text. Digitalican (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "the trappings of science to" is word for word in the source. You are expected to re-say what the source says but in your own words, completely your own. Read the sentence, internalize it, then write the main points they were trying to make in your own words. Don't change perfectly good sentences for no clear reason either. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to be unduly emotive. I see what you're saying. You just didn't say which part of the edit you were unhappy with. Sometimes a little direction is helpful.

As for perfectly good sentences I/we make edits for style all the time. I've seldom been critized and occasionally been lauded for them. I do tend to think a Wikipedia page is improved with style and reorganization so that reader is more easily able to make sense of it no matter whether I agree with the article or not. All of our purple prose could do with a little help. :) Digitalican (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Weasel Words"
Some of my edits have been undone as "weasel words." I wasn't very familiar with this term so I looked it up, and I don't see how it applies to my edits. If, in writing an academic paper, I write "the nineteenth century was a highly civilized period" referencing Bloggs, it is not weasel words if, on reflection, I insert "according to one source, the nineteenth century was a highly civilized period" (still referencing Bloggs, of course.) In fact the latter is better scholarship, because (a) it distances me from the text, with which I might not necessarily agree; and (b) it distances the text from any claim to unshakable authority. (Other sources might describe the nineteenth century as a time of slavery, colonialism, exploitation etc., rather than a time of civilization, while yet other sources might describe the period in both positive and negative terms.) Even if the predominant view, or perhaps the overwhelmingly predominant view, were that the nineteenth century was a civilized period, it is not the universal view of scholars, and thus any statement to that effect needs to be qualified. Not weasel words--just normal scholarly writing.GruessGott (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That has already been explained to you. Please carefully read the policies you were told to read on your talk page, and it will be clear to you why what you are doing is against those policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to put this in a mild enough way, but I really don't like being told to go off and read something, like some schoolchild who hasn't done his/her homework. If I'm infringing a policy in some obvious way, quote me the wording of the policy. (If I'm not breaking a rule in some obvious way, I would appreciate it if people would stop undoing my edits.) Thanks.GruessGott (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:WEASEL. you made the addition in bold to "Combined with a belief that the use of medicine is incompatible with Christian Science healing methods, this has, in the view of critics,' led to outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths." You added that in yourself, "in the view of critics" isn't in the source. You've done this throughout to try and undermine the mainstream positions. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The following is a quote from the introduction to the Wikipedia article on "Creation Science": "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[7][8] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[9][10]" Note that the intro does not say "Creation Science is a pseudoscience." It says "Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts" and gives references for this. Is the phrase "has been characterized" in the Creation Science article a form of "weasel words"? If not, what is the problem with such formulations in the article on Christian Science?GruessGott (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And the astrology article says "Astrology is a pseudoscience, and as such has been rejected by the scientific communities as having no explanatory power for describing the universe". We aren't playing compare the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

OK we're getting to the nub of the matter here, and perhaps it's just down to a misunderstanding. There was no attempt on my part to suggest that "in the view of critics" is in the source. (I think I put it in the way I did, ie in the middle of the sentence, to avoid some semantic clumsiness that would have resulted had I put it at the start of that particular citation.) But you are right if you're pointing out that "in the view of critics" should probably have been inserted in the beginning rather than the middle of the text cited, to avoid any confusion as to whether it was in the original text, or not. I will endeavor to do that in future. However, if it's the phrase itself that you're objecting to (rather than its placing in the text) I should point out that a phrase such as "in the view of critics" is an introduction of a perspective, in the normal academic way. That is the norm in academic writing, in the disciplines with which I'm familiar at any rate (philosophy, sociology etc) whether one is a "realist" on the one hand, or a "relativist" (or postmodernist) on the other. (I write peer-reviewed academic articles that get published in academic journals and books, and that's how it's done in that context.) You write that I've tried to undermine the mainstream positions. First of all, I can assure you that I haven't tried to do that, and I guess I'm the best person to understand my subjective motives. Secondly, I don't think I've done it (bracketing the question of whether I tried to do it or not). However, if you want something to go in about a particular perspective being the view of mainstream critics, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with, is the article giving the impression that something that some writer has said on a complex social/historical/ideological issue is the case, as if it's some kind of unquestioned and unquestionable truth--like the statement "there is a moon" (though even that last statement could be questioned by some radical constructivists lol). I hope that may clarify the situation somewhatGruessGott (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not done in that style. Some of these people are not "critics", they are scientists reporting on facts which have been chosen to be added to this article. It is a fact that their have been "outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths" directly attributable to Christian Science medical neglect. Saying the information comes from "critics", or trying to pass them off as critics doesn't make it so. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I concede you have a point there, though it hangs on definitions of terms like "fact" and "attributable," and "neglect" is as much opinion as fact. But let that pass for the moment. Even if a qualifying phrase may be inappropriate in this particular context, it is not so in the case of some of the other qualifying phrases that were deleted. And as an overall point, I'm quite sure that the Wikipedia entry on "Medicine" is not dominated by references to iatrogenic illnesses and deaths, concerns about the effects of vaccines, animal experimentation, issues raised by placebos, the huge cost of the medical health care system, and negative issues about the drug industry, commercialisation, medical malpractice, etc etc. The fact that there are now so many negative comments in the entry on Christian Science--even if the comments may be "factual" in some cases (whatever that means)--gives an overall distorted and unbalanced view of the subject.GruessGott (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Medicine is not full of these concerns because the reliable sources are not full of these concerns. You aren't comparing like with like. Medicine has the advantage that it works, so there is lots of coverage about how it works and the great things it does. With Christian Science Healing there is only coverage about how it does not work and how children have died etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone involved from time to time in medical research, I can assure you that you are quite wrong when you say that medicine works; as though it always works. It only works some of the time, and medical diagnoses can be little more than guess work. You are also wrong when you say that there is only coverage on how Christian Science does not work. The current Encyclopedia Britannica article on Christian Science, which is an undeniable secondary source, certainly entertains claims that it works; at least on occasion. Even sceptics admit that Christian Science "appears to work" as a product of the placebo effect; the well-documented improvement in the health of sick patients after they have taken placebos, which they were led to believe were effective medication. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source. CS merely has the appearance of working due to known issues like regression towards the mean, confirmation bias, and the placebo effect. Also see Placebo. Something "working" by placebo is still not working, it merely can fool people that it is. It's not a positive that Christian Science has the appearance of working; any intervention is subject to the placebo effect (and non-interventions too). Your not a medical doctor, so I'm going to ignore your claims about medical diagnoses being guesswork, I see no evidence that it's anything but your belief. It's also a red herring, it's like arguing that trains don't work "because they don't always work". Evidence based medicine actually works, do you deny this? Yes or No. (I like your weasel " Even sceptics admit ...", it's also nice that you don't include citations when you quote people) IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source." You're correct on that, according to Wikipedia definitions anyway. (I'm not sure the guidelines have got it right though, as Enc Brit sometimes relies on primary sources, which would make it a secondary source in those instances.) "CS merely has the appearance of working due to known issues like regression towards the mean, confirmation bias, and the placebo effect." That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But that's all it is: opinion. "Something 'working' by placebo is still not working, it merely can fool people that it is." If I were relieved of suffering due to a placebo effect, I'm not sure I would care very much that it was my belief that caused the relief, rather than the effect of the medicine I thought I was taking. (If something heals, it works, whatever the reason for its working, whether psychosomatic or whatever.) GruessGott (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you get something like syphilis or a snake bite, good luck with the placebo effect. (There is insufficient evidence for the case that the placebo effect can result in actual healing, rather just changes in the subjective feelings). Anyway, this thread is going off topic again. IRWolfie- (talk)


 * Well IRWolfie, When are we going to see your completed rehash of the CS article? So far, you have stripped it of a lot of information, which was both of interest to readers and pretty NPOV. It was, after all, largely the product of non-Christian Science editors. It is now a watered down travesty of what it was. I strongly advise you to read the current Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Christian Science, which would be a good model for you to emulate, and which you simply cannot argue (and don't argue) is a primary source. In addition, your refusal to accept that CS is a religion not only denies the factual position but may well be hurtful to its adherents. Why this has not invoked complaints by them remains a mystery to me, except that I am aware that members of their First Church are prohibited from the public debate of CS. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J. Mullany (talk • contribs)


 * I have been improving it. Can you please stop with the straw man arguments. Please point to the line where I had a "refusal to accept that CS is a religion". IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what Michael J. Mullany was getting at is the designation of Christian Science as a "pseudoscience." (But he can speak for himself, no doubt.) As I pointed out already, "Christian Science" is the name of a religion. It is not a pseudoscience, nor is it a science as science is understood today. It was named in the nineteenth century, long before Popper et al. It does not do science as science is currently understood, nor should it reasonably be expected to, nor would it want to. (It is not a pseudoscience any more than modern protestantism is pseudo-protestantism because it may not be currently protesting about something or other.) In regard to Michael's point re members of FCCS being prohibited from public debate of CS, I think it's straining the interpretation to apply it to a forum like this. The relevant text (Article X of the Church Manual) reads: "A member of this Church shall not debate on Christian Science in public debating assemblies, without the consent of the Board of Directors." It's a big stretch to regard the Talk page as a public debating assembly. In any case its function, if I understand it correctly, is to discuss the article on CS, rather than the substantive issue of CS itself. In recent times, members of FCCS have been encouraged by the church to act individually to correct public misconceptions of CS, rather than sole reliance being placed on dedicated "Committees on Publication." One can't really do that properly on Wikipedia without contributing to the Talk page. In regard to another of Michael's points; I am a member, I have complained about the dogmatic designation of CS as a "pseudoscience" (as if that statement were in the same category as the statement that the earth is round) and it hasn't done any good. In terms of the current state of the article: there is no problem with secondary material being added to the article (insofar as it's correctly quoted/paraphrased of course). The article needed a lot more secondary material. The problem arises (a) from statements in secondary material being regarded as fact rather than interpretation; and (b) from the fact that, due to an extremely narrow, and one-sided, interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines on primary sources, much valuable, informative and accurate material was removed--rather than being simply supplemented/balanced with secondary material as appropriate, which could only have improved the article. In the end it's the people with the most time and persistence who tend to win out in these edit wars. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time at the moment. However, I will continue to correct the misinterpretations of CS in the article whenever I have the opportunity, doing my best--of course--to do so in accordance with the Wikipedia conventions (though not in accordance with some random interpretation of them).GruessGott (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:TLDR. The scientific method was formulated by that time. Science didn't just come into existence once popper came around. This is why we don't insert original research into articles, because it's often wrong. I find it odd that some of you appear to be repeating this same "fact". Is this part of the CS teaching? Go check up the history of the scientific method. Keep on topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method. Scientific method, as we know it, was only developing at the time of the nineteenth century. You ask a question as to ask whether some doctrine about Popper is part of Christian Science teaching. Christian Science teaching is found exclusively in the Bible and the writings of Mary Baker Eddy--there are no groups or individuals that have any remit to modify it, add to it, or subtract from it. (Anyone who was familiar with Christian Science would know this, btw.) Since Popper was eight years old at the time of MBE's death, I don't see how she, or Christian Science teaching, would have anything to say about him, one way or another.GruessGott (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The scientific method is always developing. The first to use something related to its current form was Francis Bacon or possibly Alhazen. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)