User:Ian.thomson/Indigo children/For Indigos

About the sources for this article
A question I'd like you to consider for a moment: If your computer was broken, whose advice would you take on repairing it: An IT worker, or an Amish person? In general, whose advice would you take? The person whose career revolves around the subject and requires them to study the concept constantly? Or someone who explicitly rejects what you're trying to use?

Mainstream science only sticks with stuff that almost anyone can observe and verify. It only makes sense to stick with mainstream science, since verifiability is one of the cornerstones of this encyclopedia. It doesn't just go with what one person says (because anyone can be mistaken), it goes with what the majority of scientists have to say.

If all mainstream scientists can be wrong, then a single individual with a neurological disorder and no scientific training can also be wrong. The concept of Indigo Children was developed by such a person, and the idea is propagated by a few more people with no scientific training. Comparisons with Galileo don't work, because he used observable data, and he was opposed for non-scientific reasons. The advocates of the concept of Indigo Children specifically avoid letting their data be observed in a scientific manner.

Now remember my earlier question. I'm sure you chose the guy trained to handle the subject at hand. Considering this, how can it be reasonable to take the word of a few people with no scientific training (and in the case of book authors, a profit-based conflict of interest) over the word of trained psychologists, neurologists, statisticians, and other scientists when looking for information about the Indigo Children phenomenon? It is not in the slightest.

To date, no mainstream scientific journal nor institute has demonstrated any evidence of Indigo Children being a real phenomenon. This is the standard Wikipedia uses, so until a mainstream scientific source comes out with evidence that Indigo Children exist, it will be treated as pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

But what about auras, psychic powers, or other traits?

 * There is no evidence for "auras," but there are neurological disorders which make people see colors that otherwise aren't there. Nancy Ann Tappe, who developed the concept, has such a disorder, and admits it herself.
 * There is no evidence for psychic powers. If you have them, head over to your local university's psychology or neurology department now and demonstrate them.  If you really have them, and show them off, they'll be interested in seeing them.
 * Most of the cultures where the concept of Indigo Children has gained any acceptance value empathy, curiousity, strong will, and independence on some level. How would it be unusual for children from these cultures to display such traits?
 * Respect for authority is not something that is inherent but learned. If a child is not taught it, they won't know it.  In addition, disrespect for authority is also taught in many circles.
 * If Indigo Children have a higher intelligence quotient or an intuitive ability, then this would be testable in experiments. To date, no organized study has found evidence for any of this. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Epoch era (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)People who are different and even special or gifted and talented aren't all mentally disabled or mentally handicapped. Some are and some are not. What about labeling?Epoch era (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said that gifted individuals are all mentally disabled/handicapped, don't put words in my mouth, it's dishonest. Your straw man red herring aside, where is the evidence for auras, psychic powers, or higher IQ scores?  To date, none has been found or presented, and the behavioral aspects have perfectly mundane social explanations.  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

But this is a faith-based claim!
Faith-based claims about observable events or qualities (like increased IQ or psychic powers) can still be scientifically tested. The effects of being a supposed Indigo Child have been tested for, and the effects do not appear to exist. Faith-based claims are only untestable if they avoid making testable claims. "Somewhere, beings who know how to avoid all empirical detection exist" is an untestable claim. "My child is smarter/more empathetic than average" is perfectly testable. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

But I really am special! How can I prove it?
Head over to your local university's psychology or neurology department, and explain that you would like to demonstrate your special powers in a controlled study. If you'd like to make money doing it, contact James Randi, he'll pay you a million dollars if you can scientifically demonstrate that you have some sort of supernatural quality.

If the experiments don't find anything, consider the other reasons why you might have the qualities you think make you an Indigo Child. You likely come from or live in a culture that does value empathy and independence. Wouldn't you be more special for being empathetic, independent, and intuitive while just being yourself? Isn't the idea of being some sort of special new step in evolution a bit comic-bookish? Really consider that you or your child might not be an Indigo Child, but just someone unique. Being unique doesn't happen through labels such as "Indigo Child", but through just living. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're still upset
Until you can find a scientific source that says Indigo Children are real, don't bother with Wikipedia. You will only frustrate yourself and annoy us. Seriously, we are sick and tired of delusional bullocks being pushed on children, and we will not let you do it here. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments
Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key on most keyboards). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * «Most keyboards» means actually keyboards of people who need help to locate a symbol on their keyboards — namely users of the US keyboard. Tuvalkin (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * But the problem is that debunkers are not true scientists, they're really pseudoskeptics! (but jokes aside, to readers, WP:ARBPS is serious business, Wikipedia cannot claim that pseudoscience is science; like Ian did, it even must clearly indicate that it is pseudoscience where needed).  This was a good read (it was on my to-read list since February).  Thanks, —  Paleo  Neonate  — 03:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)