3,209
edits
Changes
Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Flavius Vanillus (view source)
Revision as of 15:17, 20 July 2008
, 15:17, 20 July 2008no edit summary
'''Flavius Vanillus''' edited from on Wikipedia from 7 November 2005 - 2 April 2006 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Flavius+vanillus] . His contributions are interesting and important because they show clear signs of scientific education, a clear grasp of the thinking behind the scientific method and its connection with the Wikipedia principles concerning [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Neutral Point of View | Neutral Point of View]]. Nonetheless he was banned forever on 2 April 2006.
'''Flavius Vanillus''' edited from on Wikipedia from 7 November 2005 - 2 April 2006 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Flavius+vanillus] . His contributions are interesting and important because they show clear signs of scientific education, a clear grasp of the thinking behind the scientific method and its connection with the Wikipedia principles concerning [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Neutral Point of View | Neutral Point of View]]. Nonetheless he was banned forever on 2 April 2006.
==Introduction==
==Introduction==
=== Why NLP is pseudoscience ===
=== What is NLP ===
'''Neurolinguistic Programming''' (NLP) began as an alternative school of psychotherapy in California, USA, during the mid-seventies. It was initiated by John Grinder, a linguistic professor, Richard Bandler a BA in Philosophy and Psychology, at the University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC). It is now marketed as a powerful method or technique of personal development offering unlimited potential and rapid improvement in the way a person thinks, behaves or feels [http://www.nlp-now.co.uk/nlp-what.htm]. It is supposed to work by copying or "modelling" the behaviour and thinking styles of particularly effective and successful people in business, coaching, education, sales, therapy, sport, and personal development.
Detractors argue that it is a hotch–potch of theories, some of which are based on legitimate science, but which have no connection with NLP, others of which are completely unscientific, including hypnosis, psychotherapy and unconscious thinking, mixed up into a messy soup of new age thinking.
For example, the psycholinguist Levelt (1995) passed devastating judgment on NLP: It is not informed about the literature, it starts from insights that have been rendered out of date long ago, its key concepts are not apprehended or are a mere fabrication, or are conclusions are based upon wrong presumptions. NLP theory and practice have nothing to do with neuroscientific insights, nor with linguistics, nor with informatics and theory of programming. NLP is not interested in the question as to how neurological processes take place, neither in serious research."
(WJM Levelt is a preeminent scholar and psycholinguist. Professor Levelt is the director of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Levelt's publications number in the hundreds and he is cited thousands of times according to Google scholar).
=== Promotion of NLP in Wikipedia ===
Flavius lost his battle against some powerful forces within the Wikipedia administration. First, and administrator called FT2, who enjoys a large following in Wikipedia, and is now leader of the all-powerful 'Arbitration Committee' of Wikipedia. FT2 wrote all of the original NLP articles on Wikipedia, and has defended them against many scientific opponents and sceptics, succeeding in getting many of the blocked or banned. FT2 is also trained in NLP (having trained for what is called the "Master Practitioner" under Robert Dilts and Judith Delozier in 1998, in Stanta Cruz, where NLP all began [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=26610872&oldid=26610429]). FT2 was assisted by another administrator, 'Woohookitty', who worked closely with him on the case (and who administered the final ban).
Flavius' main editorial opponent was a user called '''Comaze''', real name Scott Coleman, who runs an NLP company called Comaze.com in Australia, and who also has some connection with a company called Inspiritive, run by Chris and Jules Collingwood [http://www.inspiritive.com.au/new_code_nlp.htm], who are invoked by Coleman at one point, saying he was 'authorised' to speak for them.
The argument is heated and bitter. Comaze says "In this discussion my interest in NLP is purely from a Neutral Point of View".
'''Flavius''': No, it definitely isn't NPOV. You are a promoter and advocate and you have a zeal that is almost religious. NLP is basically a "snake oil" business. The advocacy that you are engaged in is especially unethical because NLP isn't free, it costs big bucks. Not only is their insuffcient evidence of the efficacy of NLP there is substantial evidence that it doesn't work. It is unethical to charge people AU$100.00/hour for treatment that doesn't work or AU$5000.00 for a melange of ritual, pop-psychology, brain myths, B-grade philosophy and anecdotes.
=== NLP and pseudoscience ===
Flavius offers some very helpful arguments as to why NLP is a pseudoscience. He says that the notions of 'falsifiability' and 'disconfirmation' are central to the program of science. But NLP makes many unfalsifiable claims, and it has little if any predictive power. NLP practice is divorced from the practice of empirical verification, its theorising is not substantiated with reference to empirical evidence, it doesn't exploit the body of knowledge of established disciplines and its theoretical basis is actively denied to exist by many proponents.
Flavius offers some very helpful arguments as to why NLP is a pseudoscience. He says that the notions of 'falsifiability' and 'disconfirmation' are central to the program of science. But NLP makes many unfalsifiable claims, and it has little if any predictive power. NLP practice is divorced from the practice of empirical verification, its theorising is not substantiated with reference to empirical evidence, it doesn't exploit the body of knowledge of established disciplines and its theoretical basis is actively denied to exist by many proponents.
Replying to the argument that NLP is more like mysticism or religion, he argues that NLP makes claims and posits explanations regarding learning, memory, thinking, mental illness, motivation, neurology and physiology, and so its ''domain'' is the same as that of science. NLP is offering competing theories and therapies to established scientific disciplines. By contrast, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is exclusively concerned with theology, it is entirely a religious matter and is hence entirely outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. During the 14th century when the Roman Church did stray outside its proper domain of discourse and opine on matters of astronomy and medicine -- subjects of science -- it was plainly in error. The Roman Catholic Church was not offering a legitimate Christian perspective on astronomy or medicine. What the NLP industry is doing is akin to the medieval Christian Church competing with science on matters outside of its authority.
Replying to the argument that NLP is more like mysticism or religion, he argues that NLP makes claims and posits explanations regarding learning, memory, thinking, mental illness, motivation, neurology and physiology, and so its ''domain'' is the same as that of science. NLP is offering competing theories and therapies to established scientific disciplines. By contrast, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is exclusively concerned with theology, it is entirely a religious matter and is hence entirely outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. During the 14th century when the Roman Church did stray outside its proper domain of discourse and opine on matters of astronomy and medicine -- subjects of science -- it was plainly in error. The Roman Catholic Church was not offering a legitimate Christian perspective on astronomy or medicine. What the NLP industry is doing is akin to the medieval Christian Church competing with science on matters outside of its authority.
=== Abuse of NPOV ===
The crucial part of the dispute (misunderstanding of which clearly lead to Flavius being banned) is whether the NPOV policy requires that each side of the dispute has an equal say in the article. Flavius has a clear understanding of what this policy is. It does not require, for example, that all sides of a dispute get equally represented by Wikipedia - the policy [[WP:WEIGHT]] has a lot to say on this. But Flavius is bullied by a succession of editors. FT2 argues that 'An encyclopedia is a collation of multiple perspectives and views'. Flavius replies that if so, equal coverage should be given to the view that the Earth is flat:
:That is not to say that there are not people that contend that the Earth is flat ... or that the Earth is hollow ... or that the earth was colonised by space aliens. 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.
:Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View. It says, for example, to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. [13]. What you continue to call "neutrally attributed sources" has absolutely nothing to do with "Neutral Point Of View policy". (User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon) 03:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Flavius replies
:This is turning towards the surreal. Hasn't this already been resolved? If MEDLINE doesn't index a particular journal then that journal -- and its constituent artcles -- carry little weight. MEDLINE employs an expert panel of scientists that decide what journals to index and which to exclude (refer the link I provided earlier). There are less than 10 studies that are written up in MEDLINE indexed journals that make favourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part thereof) (refer to my MEDLINE search). Further, these studies are offset by the 7 or so studies in MEDLINE that contain no obvious methodological flaws and make unfavourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part therof) and the studies themselves contain obvious methodological deficiencies (see my MEDLINE search). Further to that there are numerous books -- authored by scientists -- that are cited in the NLP article (eg. Singer (1999), Lilienfeld (2003)) that arrive at a negative evalutaion of NLP. What is there left to weigh as assess? Anecdote? Testimonials? Unpublished research results? Research results published in Anchor Point and obscure journals that for all we know were founded and edited by some fruitcake? Articles in obscure journals that pseudoscience topics routinely? I'm eager to know. The consensus of scientific and clinical opinion is that NLP is bunkum. FT2 replies
: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 wittily replies:
:That is incorrect. The implications of the Earth being flat are profound and widespread.
An administrator tries to argue that Flavius should be constructive
:(Admin) I'm not getting into the specifics of NLP, because I don't know, and I don't care. But we have to conform with NPOV, and right now it's not happening. Domination of this article will lead only to revert wars like the one that got this page locked. This is what we're trying to avoid here. Instead of being defensive, we need to be constructive and reach a compromise here.
Flavius correctly replies that this is nonsense.
:'''Flavius''': Swatjester, NPOV conformity doesn't entail passing bullshit off as fact and privileging pseudocience such that it speaks as loud as science in the article. If it did then the half of the Earth article would be devoted to flat-earth theory. flavius 05:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC) [80]
Flavius then cites what is standard Wikipedia policy on NPOV:
:'''Contra NLP'''
#The view that NLP is efficacious and theoretically sound is a minority view not unlike "flat earth" theory. Hence it should be treated in the NLP article and in Wikipedia generally as a minority view.
#The scientists cited in the article are representative of the majority view of psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, neurologists, nueropsychologists and sociologists and hence should be presented as such.
#The few (3-5) scientists that do support and promote NLP are a minority, they are espousing a minority view and should be presented as such.
#The view that NLP is pseudoscientific, New Age and cult-like is the majority view of psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, neurologists, neuropsychologists and sociologists and should be presented as such.
#The texts cited in criticism of NLP are authroritative and many are peer-reviewed.
:'''Pro NLP'''
:The obverse of the above points.
:The conflict arises because
#The pro-NLP editors are unwilling to have NLP presented as a minority view.
#The pro-NLP editors are unwilling to have the view that NLP is ineffective and withour theoretical basis presented as the majority view.
#The few scientists that do support NLP and promote its use are too much weight and space relative to their individual (academic) stature and numerical number.
#The pro-NLP editors argue that the scathing critiques (eg. from Leelt, Drenth, Carroll, Eisner, Singer) are not majority representative views but are instead the views of a minority of extremists.
:The extensive, expansive and heated discussion occured because these positions were argued for by each side in an attempt to establish the righness of their position regarding the representativess and authority of the sources ''not the righness or wrongness of NLP''. The bulk of the conflict turns around the application [[WP:NPOVUW]], NPOV:Pseudoscience, and NPOV:Giving "equal validity". The ''real'' issues have not been addressed by any mediators, arbitrarors and mentors and addressing these would not be "more of the same". It is well within your remit to adjudicate these matters. Have I explained myself clearly? Do you understand? [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=39828314]
This is entirely correct, but the problem with Wikipedia is that administrators are merely policemen, not lawyers or judges, and have no understanding whatever of the content disputes. They require only a limited concept of 'civility', which Flavius could not understand.
=== The ban ===
And here is the final post that leads to him being banned.
:I'm not being uncivil and attacking others. Why is it preferable to email you rather than post my concerns in the discussion? I don't like the furtive intrigue implicit in privately communicating to the mentors. Discussion should be open and free restricted only by the law. I'm mindful that I don't libel anyone and that's enough for my government and my conscience. Your notion of "civility" is alien to me -- it's very PC notion and Australia isn't a PC nation (sure there are pockets of it on certain univeristy campuses and government bureaucracies but it's not a national character). I'm not from the USA so I'm not imbued with the Victorian/Protestant Puritanism that you appear to be appealing to. That isn't a personal attack -- it is a matter of fact, pointing out a fact that may be unpalatable isn't a personal attack. Also, why can't I put what I like -- so long as it isn't libellous -- on "my talk" page.
'''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.
:So what if I've been blocked six times? You're the one performing the blocking it's not like your're referring to the decisions of some independent third-party, court of the land or moral authority. Your notion of a personal attack doesn't match up with mine -- it's as simple as that. I don't understand what you are having trouble understanding ("What I don't understand is"). This is an aesthetic dispute and your definition of a "personal attack" is loose and flexible. I can't read your mind or predict the future, I don't know in advance what you will deem a "personal attack" and it isn't as if I'm calling people motherfuckers or child pornographers. Libel is well-defined so I know when I'd be libelling someone. A "personal attack" in my aesthetic judgement consists of calling someone a dickhead, a fuckwit, a moron, a rapist, paedophile, con-artist, racist epithet and so on. Stating that someone is being hypocritical and then proceeding to provide an exlanation of how someone is being hypocritical isn't a personal attack. Certainly, it's not "nice" but neither are articles on bestiality, paedophilia, coprophilia, and redneck American racists[33].
'''Flavius''': That is incorrect. The implications of the Earth being flat are profound and widespread. [[#Comments on FT2's sourcing | here]]
:Who will be the arbiter of whether I "belong here"? I've been complying with your blocks without any fuss. There is no way to keep a determined person off Wikipedia and I haven't resorted to any of these means (which are entirely legal, easy and unstoppable) so I don't understand why you are antagonising and threatening me. flavius 12:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)