|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki talk:Periodic Table of Contents
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
could we maybe make our own without various religions included? It'd make the wiki a much friendlier place--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Friendlier in regards to what? Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- in not calling the beliefs of 99% of the population irrational solely because of an unnecessary application of scientific principles to metaphysical and spiritual concepts? --User:Brxbrx/sig 22:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Since I do not grant you your premises, nor the supposed logical connections between them and your conclusion, I don't see a reason to support removal of religions. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you're the boss, but I don't really get what you just said. Could I please ask you to elaborate? Are you more of a new atheist than an accomodationist? thanks--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I reject your premises, i.e. that "99 percent of the population" believes, or that the application of scientific principles to metaphysics and spiritual concepts is unnecessary. I also reject the logical connections between them and your conclusion, i.e. I do not believe that the percentage of people that believe something has any bearing on its validity. Since I support neither your premises nor their connection to the conclusion you draw, I therefore do not support your conclusion. In order to persuade me you would have to prove the accuracy of each of your two premises, as well how the formal structure of your argument is valid. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- The first was an exaggeration. I have no idea the percentage of people who are religious, but I would assume it's in the overwhelming majority. That said, it's a crap argument: just because mos teverybody believes doesn't mean believing is rational. My second premise, that applying scientific rigor to metaphysical and spiritual concepts, I would like to expand: scientific concepts such as methodological naturalism and falsifiability are irrelevant to explorations of things that are admittedly supernatural and unfalsifiable. A similar discussion on Talk:Omphalos hypothesis was held, though I don't believe it yielded any useful conclusion (I could be saying that just because my side lost...). However, a contention from there I shall use here:It may be true, but it's similar to saying that all colors are degradations of light and then explaining all of the physics behind it ...in an art class. In other words, things like philosophy and religion don't need to be held up to such things as the scientific method (though philosophy should probably be subject to peer review).I wish to disclude (I hereby declare disclude to be a word in the English language) religion from the table of irrationality because I believe religion in its base form is not irrational, at least when it comes to defining rationality as being in accordance with scientific principles. I think RW should consider the irrational purely as something that is in direct contradiction to scientific principles or just plain logic, such as pseuodoscience and logical fallacies, and not attack religion just because it's religious (though "faiths" such as scientology are fair game due to their beliefs affirming themselves as sound science and their religiously sanctioned use of medicinal quackery). Another example: faith healers, perhaps a component of religion, can be exposed as frauds. The idea of God cannot, since it is unfalsifiable and held as a matter of faith.
I hope this argument is better worded. I just don't want to see this site become the wiki of anti-religion, you know?--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)- What principle of demarcation shall we use for separating that which is irrational from that which is not irrational based on your above commentary? What is the rule that makes Scientology irrational but Hinduism not irrational? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is clear that objective criteria for this do not exist. It is merely a case of saying that one tolerates and respects some beliefs purely because of longevity and mass appeal. The above poster attempts to pardon supposedly mainstream religions such as Christianity but not newer groups such as Scientology purely on the grounds that one claims to be science. This seems to miss the fact that even the most tolerable of religions do have numerous conflicts with empirical science; the miracles of Jesus, the prophecy that he will return, the historicity of the Bible and so on. These quite easily collide with the facts as determined by science. It appears to be a post hoc attempt to justify the ingrained and undeserved respect religion has gained among the population at large. Valjean (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It was included in the wall of text. think RW should consider the irrational purely as something that is in direct contradiction to scientific principles or just plain logic, such as pseuodoscience and logical fallacies I suggest we put irrationality down as what can be proven to be irrational.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why is Xenu a bigger contradiction to scientific principles or just plain logic, than a bodhisattva? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not Xenu. The E-Meter and scientology's various therapies.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Xenu is claimed to be a real individual in Scientology's leaked mythology. He is said to have existed and ruled an empire further back in time than the established age of the universe. How does this specific claim not conflict with scientific principles, while their less falsifiable counterparts regarding therapy do? This is a considerably inconsistent approach. Valjean (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- For the time being, we've no means of disproving Xenu. Scientologists can always retreat behind assertions such as "he's hiding!" or "powerful alien technology!" Not acceptable to science, but fine for religion, which (I'm going to beat myself later for saying this, I know it) isn't based on reality.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like a God of the gaps argument. In a purely frequentist frame work a shrinking gap can not be used to assess the hypothesized gap stopper, but I am a Bayesian, and gap shrinkage can directly effect our model of the likelihood of the gap stopper. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I believe Xenu is as disprovable/provable as any historical figure, from Queen Victoria to the dinosaurs. Hiding behind all those reasons riddle the assertion with more logical fallacies than the other forms of pseudoscience mentioned on this list. In fact, it may be possible to say that such fallacies make religions and religious figures even more worthy of appearing on this list if we were to go by the criteria above. Valjean (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Usually, this is where I duck out of an argument with the sorry excuse of "I'm a high-school drop-out" (I actually am). However, I feel strongly about this particular case. From what I can make of Bayesian (very little- I dropped out of high-school, remember?), I declare that I disagree with giving the wiki a Bayesian POV. Religion and philosophy are not based on generated data, but on assumptions and faith. For example: Sartre defined existentialism as ...the attempt to draw all the conclusions from a position of total atheism. So Sartre thought if there is no god, then life is meaningless. However, introducing god into the thought experiment completely changes all conclusions (unless you're Camus). Religion functions similarly, in that it is based on faith that the religion is true, or more specifically, that there is more that meets the eye (or indeed, more that can ever meet the eye). This is not in itself irrational, though its application is. This is where I draw the distinction: one may believe in a deity without being irrational, but becomes irrational when they apply this belief to a field which does not accept it. I hope this hasn't come out as a Gish Gallop. Tell me if it has, and I'll see if I can reword it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- This does attempt to be a fact- and reality-based wiki, hence the general sneer at religion, which is neither. Also, this is a copy of a created work, and duplicates it exactly, as far as it can, and is a version with links to our articles. In case you didn't know what was going on here. ħuman
04:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- But what I mean is that why should we apply this fact/reality standard to everything? Next will we start lambasting science fiction (although I think we may already do that...)--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Mmmm. Avoid facts and ignore reality in our articles? Well, we could certainly say nice things about religions then.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- But what I mean is that why should we apply this fact/reality standard to everything? Next will we start lambasting science fiction (although I think we may already do that...)--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- This does attempt to be a fact- and reality-based wiki, hence the general sneer at religion, which is neither. Also, this is a copy of a created work, and duplicates it exactly, as far as it can, and is a version with links to our articles. In case you didn't know what was going on here. ħuman
- Usually, this is where I duck out of an argument with the sorry excuse of "I'm a high-school drop-out" (I actually am). However, I feel strongly about this particular case. From what I can make of Bayesian (very little- I dropped out of high-school, remember?), I declare that I disagree with giving the wiki a Bayesian POV. Religion and philosophy are not based on generated data, but on assumptions and faith. For example: Sartre defined existentialism as ...the attempt to draw all the conclusions from a position of total atheism. So Sartre thought if there is no god, then life is meaningless. However, introducing god into the thought experiment completely changes all conclusions (unless you're Camus). Religion functions similarly, in that it is based on faith that the religion is true, or more specifically, that there is more that meets the eye (or indeed, more that can ever meet the eye). This is not in itself irrational, though its application is. This is where I draw the distinction: one may believe in a deity without being irrational, but becomes irrational when they apply this belief to a field which does not accept it. I hope this hasn't come out as a Gish Gallop. Tell me if it has, and I'll see if I can reword it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I believe Xenu is as disprovable/provable as any historical figure, from Queen Victoria to the dinosaurs. Hiding behind all those reasons riddle the assertion with more logical fallacies than the other forms of pseudoscience mentioned on this list. In fact, it may be possible to say that such fallacies make religions and religious figures even more worthy of appearing on this list if we were to go by the criteria above. Valjean (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like a God of the gaps argument. In a purely frequentist frame work a shrinking gap can not be used to assess the hypothesized gap stopper, but I am a Bayesian, and gap shrinkage can directly effect our model of the likelihood of the gap stopper. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- For the time being, we've no means of disproving Xenu. Scientologists can always retreat behind assertions such as "he's hiding!" or "powerful alien technology!" Not acceptable to science, but fine for religion, which (I'm going to beat myself later for saying this, I know it) isn't based on reality.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Xenu is claimed to be a real individual in Scientology's leaked mythology. He is said to have existed and ruled an empire further back in time than the established age of the universe. How does this specific claim not conflict with scientific principles, while their less falsifiable counterparts regarding therapy do? This is a considerably inconsistent approach. Valjean (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not Xenu. The E-Meter and scientology's various therapies.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why is Xenu a bigger contradiction to scientific principles or just plain logic, than a bodhisattva? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It was included in the wall of text. think RW should consider the irrational purely as something that is in direct contradiction to scientific principles or just plain logic, such as pseuodoscience and logical fallacies I suggest we put irrationality down as what can be proven to be irrational.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is clear that objective criteria for this do not exist. It is merely a case of saying that one tolerates and respects some beliefs purely because of longevity and mass appeal. The above poster attempts to pardon supposedly mainstream religions such as Christianity but not newer groups such as Scientology purely on the grounds that one claims to be science. This seems to miss the fact that even the most tolerable of religions do have numerous conflicts with empirical science; the miracles of Jesus, the prophecy that he will return, the historicity of the Bible and so on. These quite easily collide with the facts as determined by science. It appears to be a post hoc attempt to justify the ingrained and undeserved respect religion has gained among the population at large. Valjean (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- What principle of demarcation shall we use for separating that which is irrational from that which is not irrational based on your above commentary? What is the rule that makes Scientology irrational but Hinduism not irrational? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- The first was an exaggeration. I have no idea the percentage of people who are religious, but I would assume it's in the overwhelming majority. That said, it's a crap argument: just because mos teverybody believes doesn't mean believing is rational. My second premise, that applying scientific rigor to metaphysical and spiritual concepts, I would like to expand: scientific concepts such as methodological naturalism and falsifiability are irrelevant to explorations of things that are admittedly supernatural and unfalsifiable. A similar discussion on Talk:Omphalos hypothesis was held, though I don't believe it yielded any useful conclusion (I could be saying that just because my side lost...). However, a contention from there I shall use here:It may be true, but it's similar to saying that all colors are degradations of light and then explaining all of the physics behind it ...in an art class. In other words, things like philosophy and religion don't need to be held up to such things as the scientific method (though philosophy should probably be subject to peer review).I wish to disclude (I hereby declare disclude to be a word in the English language) religion from the table of irrationality because I believe religion in its base form is not irrational, at least when it comes to defining rationality as being in accordance with scientific principles. I think RW should consider the irrational purely as something that is in direct contradiction to scientific principles or just plain logic, such as pseuodoscience and logical fallacies, and not attack religion just because it's religious (though "faiths" such as scientology are fair game due to their beliefs affirming themselves as sound science and their religiously sanctioned use of medicinal quackery). Another example: faith healers, perhaps a component of religion, can be exposed as frauds. The idea of God cannot, since it is unfalsifiable and held as a matter of faith.
- I reject your premises, i.e. that "99 percent of the population" believes, or that the application of scientific principles to metaphysics and spiritual concepts is unnecessary. I also reject the logical connections between them and your conclusion, i.e. I do not believe that the percentage of people that believe something has any bearing on its validity. Since I support neither your premises nor their connection to the conclusion you draw, I therefore do not support your conclusion. In order to persuade me you would have to prove the accuracy of each of your two premises, as well how the formal structure of your argument is valid. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you're the boss, but I don't really get what you just said. Could I please ask you to elaborate? Are you more of a new atheist than an accomodationist? thanks--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Since I do not grant you your premises, nor the supposed logical connections between them and your conclusion, I don't see a reason to support removal of religions. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- in not calling the beliefs of 99% of the population irrational solely because of an unnecessary application of scientific principles to metaphysical and spiritual concepts? --User:Brxbrx/sig 22:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- This looks awesome!!
00:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can't wait until it is fully tweaked and can replace the unlinked image version. ħuman 03:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can't wait until it is fully tweaked and can replace the unlinked image version. ħuman
Copyright notice is missing[edit]
Even though he was psyched we wanted to use it, it is still copyright Crispian Jago of course. RationalWiki:Periodic_Table_of_Contents I take it this is the RW-friendly linkable version? Can you use a smaller font to make it fit this screen? Nice work. ħuman 03:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's amazing how few we don't have covered. This is why I begged him to let us use it, since is practically a RW Table of Contents. Do you mind if I experiment with font sizes/faces to shrink it a bit? You won't know since I'll just preview anyway lol. ħuman 03:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is fixed now. Why no crosslink to RationalWiki:Periodic Table of Contents, though? Or better, why isn't this there now? "Woo table" is a silly title. ħuman 04:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is fixed now. Why no crosslink to RationalWiki:Periodic Table of Contents, though? Or better, why isn't this there now? "Woo table" is a silly title. ħuman
Traditional and New age bollocks titles look like they are supposed to be colspanned over four columns, but aren't working properly. ħuman 05:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed, yay! ħuman 07:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Mini-jokes[edit]
I just started paying attention to some of the abbreviations. Some of these are brilliant, like how New World Order is "il" and Indigo child is "Jm". The only ones I can't figure out are Colonic and Cranial Osteopathy. ThunderkatzHo! 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I like how Chi has the correct spelling of Qi as it symbol. - π 02:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just noticed Creationism with Id. - π 02:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- This thing is very well loaded with jokes. Sad that there is no "Goat" element, though. ħuman 05:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Because there's nothing irrational about goats! Silly Human... ThunderkatzHo! 05:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hehe. ħuman 07:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Colonic irrigation is Ar, I assume for either "Arse" or "Anal relief". Cranial Osteopathy (Bp) could be "Bump" or "Blood pressure", due to the subject. Homeopathy is clever, too. Look at its number. 1023=1023? My favorite is the Scientology one, though... Lrh. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hehe. ħuman
- Because there's nothing irrational about goats! Silly Human... ThunderkatzHo! 05:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- This thing is very well loaded with jokes. Sad that there is no "Goat" element, though. ħuman
- Just noticed Creationism with Id. - π 02:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Crystal Power and Gem Therapy[edit]
Crystal Power was linked to Crystals, but I changed it to Crystal woo. I'm not sure what Gem therapy is and how it's different from Crystal healing. For now, I'm going to create it as a redirect.--ZooGuard (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Main page article status[edit]
What exactly is the process for getting this little gem classed as a "main page article"?
We might need a bit of text at the top so that there is something to put as text on the main page. But I'm all for it. VOXHUMANA 02:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)