User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2022/February

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tgeorgescu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I had corrected what was inaccurate and erroneous phrasing, I was not trolling. Proletarian Banner (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I am confused. I dont think you know what nautrality means, or you are biased in a sense. I was trying to make the discription of Steiner MORE neutral. A lot of people disagree with the idea that Steiner was a pseudoscientist. And no they are not stupid, they have a different epistomology based on a different ontology and a cosmology. As an anthropologist, who has discovered that any claims about a superior knowledge lets say is in fact etnocentric. Do you think for example that it is neutral to write 'voodoo is superstitous' or 'claims about astrology in the Quran are pseudescientific. So by writing it in this manner I was trying to make it more neutral and more user friendly to people who believe differently and have the freedom to do so. It is not a FACT that Steiner was a pseudoscientist. As the word 'science" is multivocal; it means different things to different people in different contexts. But many modern scientist discribe him that way, which is very understandable, but also biased, etnocentric and certainly not neutral. I hope you are able to respond to my argument and overthink this subject. 2001:1C04:3E0B:8300:18E6:EAC9:CA6C:AF81 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I explain you the basic policy of this website, but all arguments against basic policy are simply wasting your own time.

While I am not a scholar, I managed to pass my exams in metaphysics, epistemology, introduction to anthropology, sociology of science, and Western esotericism (which is a non-sectary, academic field taught at one of the top 60 universities of the world).

In other words, I know quite well that you play absolutism upon your own turf and relativism upon public turf. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:^[1][2][3][4]

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.^[5]
• We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.^[6]
• We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.^[7]
• We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.^[8]
• We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.^[9]
• We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.^[10]
• We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.^[11]
• We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
• We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.^[12]
• We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.^[13]
• We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.^[14]
• We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.^[15]
• 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.^[16]
• We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
• We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.^[17]
• We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.^[18]
• We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.^[19]
• We are biased towards an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.^[20]
• We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.^[21]
• We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.^[22]
• We are biased towards the existence of Jesus and biased against the existence of Santa Claus.^[23]
• We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.^[24]
• 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.^[25]
• We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.^[26]
• 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) 22:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wikipedia has the freedom to be biased. But don't claim to be neutral in that case. You cant be neutral and biased at the same time. Prove me wrong. Especially your description of Steiner as being a 'lunatic' seems quite unneutral to me. 2001:1C04:3E0B:8300:18E6:EAC9:CA6C:AF81 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Essays thereupon: WP:NOTNEUTRAL, WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:ABIAS. So, no, WP:NPOV does not mean the view from nowhere.

The first think I’ll say is that I have long avoided the term “objectivity” when it comes to the various things I do, such as trying to reconstruct the past, or to interpret texts, or to analyze arguments. This may seem weird, but I don’t think “objectivity” or “subjectivity” are that helpful as categories.

— Bart Ehrman, Can Historians Be Neutral?, 2018

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not a denialist, nor an anthroposoph nor a fan of Rudolf Steiner. And I therefore do not wish to be categorized as such. Like you, I am academically educated, and regard the scientific method very highly. But precisely the following sentence: 'His ideas are largely pseudoscientific.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Others call them parascience.[31]', implies that there is no scientific consensus that Steiner's ideas are pseudoscientific, after all others describe his ideas as parascience. So my point is not so much to equalize science with fringe science, but to equalize the first mentioned sources to the last mentioned sources.

Furthermore, I find only the source to Staudenmaier at the sentence : He was also prone to pseudohistory' not sufficient to make such a statement. That is why I have modified that sentence as well. I have read Staudenmaier, but he does not address the emanationism that underlies Steiner's history reading and Theosophy which is quite essential in understanding it. Again I am not a denialist, but I do think that statements like this should be properly substantiated, precisely in the name of the scientific method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodanmeb (talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not a denialist, nor an anthroposoph or a fan of Rudolf Steiner. And I therefore do not wish to be categorized as such. Like you, I am academically educated, and regard the scientific method highly. But precisely the following sentence: 'His ideas are largely pseudoscientific.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Others call them parascience.[31] implies that there is no scientific consensus that Steiner's ideas are pseudoscientific, after all others describe his ideas as parascience. So my point is not so much to equalize science with fringe science, but to equalize the first mentioned sources to the last mentioned sources.

Furthermore, I find only the source to Staudenmaier at the sentence : He was also prone to pseudohistory' not sufficient to make such a statement. That is why I have modified that sentence as well. I have read Staudenmaier, but he does not address the emanationism that underlies Steiner's 'historical' narrative which is quite essential in understanding it. Again I am not a denialist, but I do think that statements like those should be properly substantiated, precisely in the name of the scientific method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodanmeb (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Nenea ,doar pentru că îți impui opiniile și le motivezi cu surse din cărți ateiste nu înseamnă că restul care îți arată unde te înșeli sunt troli. Rahatul de articol scris din perspectiva ateista nu are decât surse părtinitoare ateiste iar când am incercat sa atrag atenția ca un citat din nu știu ce carte nu e argument ci doar opinie personala a autorului ce ați făcut? Ați restabilit aceeași prostie din orgoliu prostesc impunând propriul adevăr. Nu trebuie sa fii troll ca sa vezi că ceea ce faceți voi aici e o manipulare ,o minciună și o falsificare a datelor pentru prezentarea unei viziuni personale pe care o prezentati ca fiind adevăr susținut cu dovezi. Pe de altă parte domnilor fanatici cu prea mult timp liber sau plătiți pentru anumite interese când un creștin v-a prezentat o sursă ați sters-o pe motiv că nu e sursa credibilă. Pai voi spuneți că sunteți serioși și restul sunt troli că va strica joculețele? Pe de altă parte pe Wikipedia se șterg frecvent informații pe motiv că nu se prezinta sursa dar când sursa se dorește a fi prezentată ,surpriza Wikipedia zice că singura sursa disponibila e pe lista neagră și nu poate fi folosita iar când se reușește în sfârșit să se prezinte o alta ,e ștearsă pe motiv că sursa nu e credibilă.. Dar siturile ateiste așa zis științifice sunt dovezi în sine și surse și uite de asta voi ateii aveți religia voastră,știință.Sau ceea ce se vrea a fi știință pentru că de multe ori e exact opusul. 86.126.133.190 (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Nu sunt ateu, cred in Dumnezeu. (I'm not an atheist, I believe in God.) User:Tgeorgescu#Atheism.

@Elpiniki: Re I believe all edits that Christians add - no matter how well documented, are being removed by one or two vandals, see WP:Assume good faith. I'm a Christian and I rarely get my edits removed. That's because I only add stuff if I cite a mainstream academic source while doing so, instead of looking at last names and going "guess they're Jews or something." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Este o prăpastie enormă între un profesor universitar de Biblie creștin de la Ivy Plus și fundamentalismul bigot și neo-legionar al unor români. Eu pot afirma cu mândrie că în materie de Biblie țin cu profesorii universitari creștini, dar nu cu bigoții.

Translation: It is a great gap between Christian Bible professors from Ivy Plus and the fundamentalism of the bigots and neo-legionnaires from Romania. I proudly affirm that in respect to the Bible I side with Christian professors, but never with the bigots.

Morals: this is not a website dedicated to bigotism and ignorance. (Morala: asta nu e un website dedicat bigotismului si ignorantei.) tgeorgescu (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)