JzG, same old same old, Repeats old claims Options

[Abd]

Removes convenience copy of paper

JzG made this copyright argument over and over before, and edit warred over inclusion of sources from lenr-canr.org. The whole issue was debated ad nauseum at the WP whitelist page, and the link he removed was whitelisted specifically for usage, on consideration of the copyright arguments. There is no legal risk whatever to Wikipedia for this link, because lenr-canr.org does claim permission, and is not obligated to provide us with specific evidence for every one of their thousands of pages.

Lenr-canr.org is highly visible in the field, and if the publisher doesn't want the page offered, it can request it be taken down, and it's highly likely that they would do so. Wikipedia should not link to known copyright violations, but JzG's claim does not establish that, and he's just repeating the old arguments he made before, that were rejected; he thinks he can get away with it now that I'm blocked. Maybe he will, but I rather doubt it.

JzG also nominated for deletion my "Cabal" evidence page for RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. Watch him, folks, he'll do what he thinks he can get away with, and more.

[Grep]

So you have indeed been trying to eliminate "misinformation". Why do you deny it? There are some people who might even think that a Good Thing. Cla68's point was that it was "doomed to disappointment and frustration", not actually Wrong.

[Mathsci]

So you have indeed been trying to eliminate "misinformation". Why do you deny it? There are some people who might even think that a Good Thing. Cla68's point was that it was "doomed to disappointment and frustration", not actually Wrong.

What nonsense you write sometimes.

You haven't answered my questions about deleted edits.

I'm quite happy to see pseudoscience articles deleted - it occupies very little of my time. It's usually just a question of items on my watchlist.

The bulk (99.9%) of my WP namespace editing is on a completely different set of articles and is quite time-consuming, be it on non-commutative harmonic analysis, Handel organ concertos or Mantegna's Triumphs. The main problem is finding sources, usually not available on the web.

No need for creepy distortions.

[Achromatic]

I'm quite happy to see pseudoscience articles deleted - it occupies very little of my time.

Why? Leave aside the barrow-pushers, but what is inherently wrong with articles on pseudoscience?

Should we also AFD what is perhaps the ultimate pseudoscience, Alchemy? If not, why not?

[Mathsci]

I'm quite happy to see pseudoscience articles deleted - it occupies very little of my time.

Why? Leave aside the barrow-pushers, but what is inherently wrong with articles on pseudoscience?

They are not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, because they're usually just meaningless nonsense. They are a side-effect of the internet, that wonderful tool for self-promotion. Editors on WP can try to debunk pseudoscience (using RS), but that can often cause more trouble than it's worth if the pseudoscientists are living and active on the internet.

Hydrino theory is a good example of a discredited pseudoscientific theory which apparently for the time being does not merit a separate wikipedia article.

[Angela Kennedy]

I'm quite happy to see pseudoscience articles deleted - it occupies very little of my time.

Why? Leave aside the barrow-pushers, but what is inherently wrong with articles on pseudoscience?

They are not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, because they're usually just meaningless nonsense. They are a side-effect of the internet, that wonderful tool for self-promotion. Editors on WP can try to debunk pseudoscience (using RS), but that can often cause more trouble than it's worth if the pseudoscientists are living and active on the internet.

Hydrino theory is a good example of a discredited pseudoscientific theory which apparently for the time being does not merit a separate wikipedia article.

Aaagh! The old 'pseudoscience' name-calling again.

Do you even know what 'pseudoscience' is?

In the OED, it is defined as 'collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.'

But that can mean all sorts of beliefs and practices, accepted as based on 'scientific method' which are actually not- or have been based on 'bad science' etc. etc.

Does Freud qualify as a 'pseudoscientist'? Is psychoanalysis a 'pseudoscience'? He did follow some scientific empirical method (as flawed as that has turned out to be.) A Lot of fields are empricial, even where they are flawed.

Is qualitative method in the social sciences 'pesudoscientific'? Are theories about class, gender, pseudoscientific, even if they are based on empirical observation?

What about Dawkins 'meme' theory?

Is bad science where massive leaps of faith are posited as being based on 'the scientific method' 'pseudoscience', on account of them being 'mistaken' in their claims to scientific method? That would mean the 'obesity' article might have to be removed (there's a lot of problems with the 'science' in that field, for example!), and many psychology articles.

We could go on like this all day really. Is this 'pseudoscience'? Is that pseudoscience? The point is Mathsci is no more an appropriate arbiter of what is 'pseudoscience' than most people- so getting a clear, unambigous accurate arbitration of what is and isn't 'pseudoscience', on Wikipedia of all places, would be like trying to herd cats.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Aaagh! The old 'pseudoscience' name-calling again. Do you even know what 'pseudoscience' is?

Exactly ... pseudoscience name-calling ...

the old boys "camel spit" of the academic world. Along with the affected "discredited" which correlates to "... and double that with knobs on". It has given birth to a new cult of orthodoxy, "Rational Skepticism ... a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism". It even sounds like a hissing snake ... sssss-eudo-sssss-ience.

"You're discredited ..."
"Oh, no, I am not ..."
"Oh, yes, you are ..."
"No, you're the one who is discredited now ..."
"Oh, no, I am not ..."
"Oh, yes, you are, you are ... you're discredited AND you're pseudoscience AND pseudohistory ..."
"Oh, no, I am not ... now you're pseudoscientist."

Let's face it, the guys that were good at chemistry and physics never were the coolest in the class and the Cold Fusion Skeptic Rat Packing really was one of the nastier, more irrational episodes in the history of science ... however it pans out in the end.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Tue 22nd September 2009, 9:55pm