User talk:Cbeecoco

September 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Anthroposophy appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Standard pseudoscience/fringe warning
Adakiko (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear Adakiko,
 * The edit I made is actually the correct content of the issue. If you are able to check the sources that were used for the content I deleted, you will find that it is mainly based on ONE AUTHOR who has an axe to grind with the society.  Anthroposophy has no roots in white supremacy and has no roots in racism or in Nazism.  It is so far from that it is almost laughable to think that!  The idea that it is connected to pseudo-science is also something for quite a bit of debate that can easily be rebuffed.  Please check the sources.  I am an educator with many years studying the differences of religions, with a deep study of communication.  The claims are false and all taken out of context and puts a reputable movement and society in a bad light - to the point of libel. Cbeecoco (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Use of mistletoe for cancer treatment? (NIH) It's pseudoscience. No double blind studies done, btw. A mother challenges 'race' theories in Rudolf Steiner education BBC: Why are Steiner schools so controversial? Adakiko (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with . If you deny that Anthroposophy peddles pseudoscience, WP:AE is just around the corner. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So, being biased toward science means that if you don't understand something you call it pseudoscience? If you are not a physicist, then you probably do not understand the principles and workings of physics.  However, you can call something that uses the SAME PRINCIPLES of science to understand forces and things of the spiritual world pseudoscience because you KNOW it is not there?  How is that scientific?  There are plenty of articles by reputable sources that show how you - and anyone willing to put the time into learning - can understand spiritual science.  It is not pseudoscience.  You are basing your "evidence" on ONE author who has no authority on spiritual science - because he is an expert in WHAT, might I ask?  This is really just a one-man campaign to try to sully the work of a valid science.  So, your bias is not actually to science if you expect a non-expert to be able to speak on it.  I used to think this (Wikipedia) was a service to people and I now know that it is just a download of opinions by men who think they know things because they have a degree in something unrelated.  I won't be donating any more funds to this ridiculous source and will definitely be spreading the word ever-more emphatically to my students that Wikipedia is a joke. Cbeecoco (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't call Book of Genesis, other creation myths, or believing in ghosts pseudoscience. If you say "I believe in the ghosts", that is not pseudoscience. If you say "My electronic ghost detector detects ghosts, therefore they exist", that is where it becomes pseudoscience. If you say "I'm a doctor and mistletoe cures cancer, that's pseudoscience. Why should people be able to claim that mistletoe "cures" cancer without any proper scientific study? Adakiko (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Adakiko, where are the doctors that state that mistletoe cures cancer? There is no doctor out there stating that.  There are studies that are showing that mistletoe is effective in cancer treatment - but that is a different thing than saying it cures cancer.  I think you have opinions that are clouding your judgement.  Take a step back.  You are peddling something you don't know anything about. Cbeecoco (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And BTW - there are ongoing clinical trials at Johns Hopkins with expected results to be released very soon with regard to the mistletoe. Cbeecoco (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

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

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

So yes, we are biased.


 * We are biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience.
 * We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
 * We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
 * We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
 * We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.
 * We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
 * We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.
 * We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
 * We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
 * We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
 * We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
 * We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
 * We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
 * We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
 * We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
 * We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.
 * We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
 * We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
 * We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.
 * We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
 * We are biased towards an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.
 * We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
 * We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
 * We are biased towards the existence of Jesus and biased against the existence of Santa Claus.
 * We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
 * We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
 * We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
 * We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
 * We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)