Talk:Pseudoscience
(→Margaret Mead: Derek Freeman) |
(→Margaret Mead: taking action now) |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
Uhm, Mead is a very respected and influential anthropologist, in no small part because of the book mentioned here; the article makes her appear like a crackpot. The WP article on the book mentions controversy about her methods, but more so about her results. There's nothing pseudoscientific about the book as far as I can determine. That is a very serious accusation against a classic of anthropology that needs to be substantiated. | Uhm, Mead is a very respected and influential anthropologist, in no small part because of the book mentioned here; the article makes her appear like a crackpot. The WP article on the book mentions controversy about her methods, but more so about her results. There's nothing pseudoscientific about the book as far as I can determine. That is a very serious accusation against a classic of anthropology that needs to be substantiated. | ||
It seems that her main critic is Derek Freeman, but the overwhelming majority of anthropologists support her work. --[[Special:Contributions/84.151.186.218|84.151.186.218]] ([[User talk:84.151.186.218|talk]]) 09:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC) | It seems that her main critic is Derek Freeman, but the overwhelming majority of anthropologists support her work. --[[Special:Contributions/84.151.186.218|84.151.186.218]] ([[User talk:84.151.186.218|talk]]) 09:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I've read through the WP articles on Mead and her book now and come to the conclusion that the allegations of pseudoscience are without substance. Rather, it is Freeman whose allegations against Mead are highly suspect. Also, most of the opposition against Mead comes from right-wing circles, and there was also a right-wing editor trying to push his anti-Mead POV in WP. Therefore I have decided to remove the part about Mead, which isn't even sourced. --[[Special:Contributions/84.151.186.218|84.151.186.218]] ([[User talk:84.151.186.218|talk]]) 10:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:23, 1 July 2011
I've put a few more in here before we do a bit more on the pseudoscience articles in general. See discussion at Talk:Disproving Creationism ... --Bobbing up and down 10:08, 4 September 2007 (CDT)The answer to the von Daniken Elephant Island riddle is in the book "The Space Gods Revealed" by Ronald Story (1976) which has a map of Elephant Island and it is shaped like a piece of elephant poo -not an elephant at all. This illustrates Daniken's other pseudoscientific technique- lying. Dreadnought 07:21, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Contents |
Copy editing
I've been doing a bit of copy editing on this after a helpful IP started off. I suspect that it needs more work though.--BobNot Jim 09:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Covermaterial?
How far off from cover story status is this? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I like it, and it's 100% on-mission and actually important. If anyone comes up with objections, they and the rest of us should fix them ASAP - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- There's a couple of red-links, it looks a little messy in places and there's fuck-all in terms of external links and references. Granted this is kind of a "description of what RW is about" sort of thing, but these are still needed if you want it in the top flight of articles.
theist 17:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with redlinks as a "don't cover feature" criterion. Redlinks are what lure new cultists in for us. But referencing, yeah, needs good stuff there - David Gerard (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- There's a couple of red-links, it looks a little messy in places and there's fuck-all in terms of external links and references. Granted this is kind of a "description of what RW is about" sort of thing, but these are still needed if you want it in the top flight of articles.
Newby to RationalWiki
As a newcomer to RationalWiki I note the differences to Wikipedia, and similarities. This site seems more topical, full of discussions, ongoing campaigns etc, where Wikipedia is naturally more involved in the minutia of cataloging facts. The differences are both subtle and obvious. This site shows the thought processes of people and attitudes to science as a dominant issue. Thanks to all concerned for refining the debate and discussion of science.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- One would hope we are not rendered insensible of absurdity and incapable of ordinary discrimination. - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Making this a cover story
I would love to see such a foundational article reach cover story status. To me this is what I would like to see added:
The big points
- The costs of pseudoscience, both in terms of dollars, life and health, and general rational and critical thinking skills
- Causes and commonalities of pseudoscience, the similarities between pseudoscience across fields should be highlighted and looking at how these similarities might point to some under lying psychological reasons for its persistence
- Data on who believes what, that new Rasmussen poll just came out and there are others
- The demarcation problem at least outlined
- I am finding it difficult to find exact figures, although I am looking to start just pulling numbers for differing areas and listing them as I find them. But one thing we may want to speak about as well is the opportunity cost of pseudoscience, which I imagine to be enormous as well. While being able to find the amount of money wasted on this non-sense would be excellent, if we could find any study that looked at the opportunity cost of some of these therapies/what have yous (if someone has access to a Uni database) it would bolster the case even more. This is an excellent example of what I mean. But I am personally having trouble finding anything specific that can be sourced using Google.
The finer details
- We definitely need references
- Images, there is plenty of material here for an image or two or three
tmtoulouse 17:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I slapped a few pictures in it to jazz it up a little.
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Margaret Mead
Uhm, Mead is a very respected and influential anthropologist, in no small part because of the book mentioned here; the article makes her appear like a crackpot. The WP article on the book mentions controversy about her methods, but more so about her results. There's nothing pseudoscientific about the book as far as I can determine. That is a very serious accusation against a classic of anthropology that needs to be substantiated. It seems that her main critic is Derek Freeman, but the overwhelming majority of anthropologists support her work. --84.151.186.218 (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I've read through the WP articles on Mead and her book now and come to the conclusion that the allegations of pseudoscience are without substance. Rather, it is Freeman whose allegations against Mead are highly suspect. Also, most of the opposition against Mead comes from right-wing circles, and there was also a right-wing editor trying to push his anti-Mead POV in WP. Therefore I have decided to remove the part about Mead, which isn't even sourced. --84.151.186.218 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)