Changes

== Dialogue with FT2 ==

== Dialogue with FT2 ==

We care that we document each view fully and with understanding. That is the "truth" we work to here. That, and that alone. Our truth is the truth of the bibliography, and the measure is, have we represented collectively in summary the multiple sources of note. Drawing conclusions from all of them is a use of an encyclopedia, not the work of encyclopaedists.

'''FT2''': Writing for an encyclopedia is not the same as writing for an academic paper. It's more like writing the bibliography for an academic paper. We aren't trying to decide what is "true" and what isn't. To be honest, we don't care what "the truth" is, in that sense, because it's not what an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia is a collation of multiple perspectives and views. It's more like the bibliography of a paper (listing all kinds of sources so long as they bear on the topic) than the paper and its conclusion itself. Every view of note is in there, represented neutrally. Theres no decision to make, few opinions to form, other than to observe which views seem to be more or less common views of note, and to understand each (and its sources) well enough to document. We care that we document each view fully and with understanding. That is the "truth" we work to here. That, and that alone. Our truth is the truth of the bibliography, and the measure is, have we represented collectively in summary the multiple sources of note. Drawing conclusions from all of them is a use of an encyclopedia, not the work of encyclopaedists. FT2 01:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2 01:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

'''Flavius''': This is an erroeneous and objectionable view which does not reflect the content of artcicles on Wikipedia that are concerned with scientific matters. Consider Wikipedia's article on [[Earth]]. Coverage of "fruitcake" theories such as the earth being flat or hollow is reduced to a solitary sentence: 'In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth because of this'. Thus in an article of many hundreds of words, the view that the Earth is flat -- ''because it is unsupported by science'' -- is merely mentioned in passing. That is not to say that there are not people that contend that the Earth is flat (see http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm), or that the Earth is hollow (see http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/holearth.html), or that the earth was colonised by space aliens (see http://www.rael.org/download.php?view.1). If what you were contending were true we would find the Wikipedia Earth article giving coverage to not only every nutty idea about the earth but ''equal'' coverage to every nutty idea and the scientific view. The Flat Earth Society's conception of the Earth as flat and the Hollow Earth advocates view that the Earth has a habitable hollow core would stand as peers to the scientific view that earth is spherical and solid. If your reading of Wikipedia policy is sound then it would be appropriate for you to explain the absence of pseudoscientific theories from the Earth article (for example). You aren't advocating Wikipedia policy but instead a post-modernist worldview with its associated epistemological relativism, eclecticism and the zealotry about not "privileging" one view above another. If your and FuelWagon's editorial intention -- which is dissociated from Wikipedia policy and content -- were fulfilled, the usefulness, reliability and credibility of Wikipedia would be severely damaged. A cursory survey of Wikipedia content makes it evident that Wikipedia does indeed privilege science above pseudoscience, superstition, speculation and conjecture. This is true irrespective of the quantity of people advocating a non-scientific view or the passion with which they advocate their non-scientfic views. The consensus of scientific opinion is that NLP is empirically unsupported, theoretically unsound and pseudoscientific. (User:Flavius vanillus|flavius) 02:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an erroeneous and objectionable view which does not reflect the content of artcicles on Wikipedia that are concerned with scientific matters. Consider Wikipedia's article on [[Earth]]. Coverage of "fruitcake" theories such as the earth being flat or hollow is reduced to a solitary sentence: 'In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth because of this'. Thus in an article of many hundreds of words, the view that the Earth is flat -- ''because it is unsupported by science'' -- is merely mentioned in passing. That is not to say that there are not people that contend that the Earth is flat (see http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm), or that the Earth is hollow (see http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/holearth.html), or that the earth was colonised by space aliens (see http://www.rael.org/download.php?view.1). If what you were contending were true we would find the Wikipedia Earth article giving coverage to not only every nutty idea about the earth but ''equal'' coverage to every nutty idea and the scientific view. The Flat Earth Society's conception of the Earth as flat and the Hollow Earth advocates view that the Earth has a habitable hollow core would stand as peers to the scientific view that earth is spherical and solid. If your reading of Wikipedia policy is sound then it would be appropriate for you to explain the absence of pseudoscientific theories from the Earth article (for example). You aren't advocating Wikipedia policy but instead a post-modernist worldview with its associated epistemological relativism, eclecticism and the zealotry about not "privileging" one view above another. If your and FuelWagon's editorial intention -- which is dissociated from Wikipedia policy and content -- were fulfilled, the usefulness, reliability and credibility of Wikipedia would be severely damaged. A cursory survey of Wikipedia content makes it evident that Wikipedia does indeed privilege science above pseudoscience, superstition, speculation and conjecture. This is true irrespective of the quantity of people advocating a non-scientific view or the passion with which they advocate their non-scientfic views. The consensus of scientific opinion is that NLP is empirically unsupported, theoretically unsound and pseudoscientific. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 02:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

'''Flavius''': Neither is NLP relative to the worldwide population of psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists, linguists, philosophers, and computer scientists. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)  

 

 

 

Neither is NLP relative to the worldwide population of psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists, linguists, philosophers, and computer scientists. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

'''FT2''': Unlike psychology, it is a view that can be proven or disproven rather than opinioned.  

FT2: Unlike psychology, it is a view that can be proven or disproven rather than opinioned.  

'''Flavius''': Modern psychology is experimental psychology not armchair (or barstool in the case of Bandler and Grinder) theorising. Matters of psychology are no more "opinioned" than matters of geology. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Modern psychology is experimental psychology not armchair (or barstool in the case of Bandler and Grinder) theorising. Matters of psychology are no more "opinioned" than matters of geology. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

'''FT2''': There is a lot to say about earth. There probably isn't much to say about it being round, either. Its shape is noted in passing, and gets little space regardless.  

FT2: There is a lot to say about earth. There probably isn't much to say about it being round, either. Its shape is noted in passing, and gets little space regardless.

'''Flavius''': That is incorrect. The implications of the Earth being flat are profound and widespread. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The implications of the Earth being flat are profound and widespread. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

'''FT2''': Wikipedia privileges notable views, not just the one most notable view.  

FT2: Wikipedia privileges notable views, not just the one most notable view.

'''Flavius''': On matters of science (versus religion or aesthetics) there is only one notable view, namely that of the scientific community. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)  

On matters of science (versus religion or aesthetics) there is only one notable view, namely that of the scientific community. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)  

FT2: Wikipedia describes each honestly in its own light, regardless of which one may be thought true.  

'''FT2''': Wikipedia describes each honestly in its own light, regardless of which one may be thought true.  

"Fruit Loop" opinions are typically distinguished by a qualification that there is no evidence to support the view. They are not erected upon stilts and marched around in a surreal parade. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)  

'''Flavius''': "Fruit Loop" opinions are typically distinguished by a qualification that there is no evidence to support the view. They are not erected upon stilts and marched around in a surreal parade. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)  

FT2: Wikipedia lists evidence where appropriate but it does not advocate.  

'''FT2''': Wikipedia lists evidence where appropriate but it does not advocate.  

I see no demands for advocacy from the critical editors. The problem here appears to be that you would like the actual position of numerous prominent (and in some cases preeminent eg. Levelt) scientists regarding NLP censored or placed on equal footing with the baseless opinions of NLP promoters. This is perverse. The NLP article would achieve NPOV by reflecting the status of NLP amongst scientists and clinicians. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)  

'''Flavius''': I see no demands for advocacy from the critical editors. The problem here appears to be that you would like the actual position of numerous prominent (and in some cases preeminent eg. Levelt) scientists regarding NLP censored or placed on equal footing with the baseless opinions of NLP promoters. This is perverse. The NLP article would achieve NPOV by reflecting the status of NLP amongst scientists and clinicians. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)  

FT2: In addition, The word "objectionable" is personal opinion and not of value here.  

'''FT2''': In addition, The word "objectionable" is personal opinion and not of value here.  

No it isn't. In so far as your editorial intentions conflict with NPOV policy then they are objectionable. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)  

'''Flavius''': No it isn't. In so far as your editorial intentions conflict with NPOV policy then they are objectionable. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)  

FT2: Wikipedia has its own perspective. It's not post modern or relative. It's called NPOV and while you edit here, it's the water you and I both swim in. Read it carefully, again -- all of it. Especially the bits about writing for the enemy.  

'''FT2''': Wikipedia has its own perspective. It's not post modern or relative. It's called NPOV and while you edit here, it's the water you and I both swim in. Read it carefully, again -- all of it. Especially the bits about writing for the enemy.  

Last, did you do as I suggested long ago and look up how genuine pseudosciences such as Homeopathy are represented in Wikipedia? I think you should. Try to understand why they are written as they are. What of the Homeopathy article? How did you distinguish Homeopathy as a "genuine pseudoscience" and NLP -- by implication -- as non-genuine psuedoscience? Using what criteria? Drenth and Levelt both regard NLP as a pseudoscience. Don't you think Levelt -- the director of the Max Planck Institute of Psycholingusitics -- can distinguish genuine science from bunkum? flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)  

'''Flavius''': Last, did you do as I suggested long ago and look up how genuine pseudosciences such as Homeopathy are represented in Wikipedia? I think you should. Try to understand why they are written as they are. What of the Homeopathy article? How did you distinguish Homeopathy as a "genuine pseudoscience" and NLP -- by implication -- as non-genuine psuedoscience? Using what criteria? Drenth and Levelt both regard NLP as a pseudoscience. Don't you think Levelt -- the director of the Max Planck Institute of Psycholingusitics -- can distinguish genuine science from bunkum? flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28798929]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28826334

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28826334