User talk:Teledildonix314/Archive 1

This page is /Archive 1 and contains the material during the original two years from the time i created my account on 2006-12-29 thru the end of 2008. I only made a small number of edits, and they were nearly all "minor", and certainly quite uncontroversial.



Welcome to my Talk page

Hi Hi, thank you for visiting my talk page. My personal information may be found on my user page. If you would like to discuss anything related to Wikipedia, please click here to leave me a message in a new section below. If you'd like to discuss anything beyond Wikipedia, you can email me, thanks!

Tips for editing the encyclopedia
Open-mindedness - A look at some of the flawed thinking that prompts people who believe in certain non-scientific concepts to advise others who don't to be more open-minded.

Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language - APA guideline

User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior -  interspersed with recommendations on how to deal with it.

User:Mccready - Editing principles for pseudoscience articles in Wikipedia

Advocacy - Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda. Cooperate with other editors to neutrally summarize notable topics using reliable sources without advocating any particular position or giving undue weight to minority views.

Who am i ?
My personal information is on my User Page ~ i'm Kevin Hutchins the Bellinghamster in real life, and in online fora i'm Teledildonix314 ~  Talk ~  4-1-1

excellent criteria for debunking superstition and religion
Non Sequitur - the Invention of Ideology - http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/nq/2009/nq090111.gif

The following is copied and pasted directly from User:Mccready because it is so awesome to find such a concise summary of logic which works for most any dispute in which evidence-based activity (e.g., scientific research) is in conflict with fantasy-based notions (e.g., religions and superstitions):

Points commonly made by pseudoscientists
1. Pseudoscience is an offensive word and a POV label.
 * Wrong. It's a perfectly useful word and should be used when appropriate. If other people find it offensive, we can't help that. As encyclopedists we don't pander to people's feelings. We describe things accurately.

2. You need to cite a source before using the word.
 * No. We are perfectly at liberty to draw inferences in writing an encyclopedic article. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. If it fits the definition as above then use it.

3. ''My pseudoscience has lots of scientists working on it. But I know it's a possibility that it's not fully supported by science.''
 * Yes there is enormous effort being put into research in all sorts of areas. Usually the underlying theories (eg meridians in acupuncture or vertebral subluxation in chiropractic) are not supported by the scientific method and studies are usually disputed. The fact that research exists, even in peer reviewed journals may not be enough to avoid fitting the definition of pseudoscience.

4. My pseudoscience is supported by governments or universities.
 * Governments usually make decisions for political, not scientific, reasons. The lobbying power of some psuedosciences is enormous and of course we have the problem of cultural memes. Universities these days are unfortunately more market driven than otherwise. Thus government or university support does not change the fact that your field may be a pseudoscience. Don't forget how many people thought the world was flat.

5. ''My career is built on this pseudoscience. I've been trained. I'm an expert. I've seen with my own eyes.''
 * See regressive fallacy. Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron. We need replicability before such claims can be accepted in an encyclopedia or by science.

6. ''You can't say that one day my pseudoscience might be proven and we are working on it. Scientists say further research needs to be done.''
 * True. But in the meantime the appellation might fit and we are writing an encyclopedia here not speculating and not providing material for scientists to pad their research applications with. Perhaps enough research has been done to conclude that your pseudoscience is not a good bet.

7. The onus is on you to disprove my pseudoscience.
 * No. You can't prove a negative.

8. You're not being balanced about my pseudoscience.
 * Balance is a weasel word which people seem to prefer instead of truth or accuracy. The notion that balance has to be given to the idea, to pick an example I hope will offend nobody, that the moon is made of blue cheese is unacceptable. Maybe it is legitimate to put more brickbats than bouquets in an article about your pseudoscience.

9. ''Whether the moon is made of blue cheese is subject to scientific research. There is no scientific consensus over whether or not evidence supports this.'' Please replace the bolded words with your pseudoscience. You may then be able to see that perhaps this form of words is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. It may be a POVish attempt to place your pseudoscience within the realms of science, as noted variously above.
 * copied and pasted on 090103_0559PST Teledildonix314 talk 13:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Greater Victoria, British Columbia
Thanks for finding what you called an exhortation. In fact, it was political. I find comments like that all over wikipedia regarding Canadian sites that have land claim disputes. This particular one was added 2008-02-13, but somehow I missed it. I guess I will have to check my watchlist more often. I already do it at least once a day, but if two changes are made on the same day I might not see the first one. Then again, it was right before Valentine's Day... my mind might have been elsewhere!!! LOL -CubBC (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The next page is /Archive 2 and contains material from 2009-01-01 thru 2009-04-20.