Talk:Hermann Ebbinghaus

Mission

This is all very interesting, but how does it fit the mission? Sophie^Wilder 10:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that any page showing someone who has successfully used the scientific method in the advancement of scientific thought and understanding is very on mission to refuting anti-science. Part of the anti-science movement is to discredit the scientific method, and when you have seemingly non-controversial research conducted using that method, it undercuts that argument. Is there a reason you specifically think it doesn't fit the mission? Reverend Lucifer (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

So we should have articles on every scientist who uses the scientific method? The site's purpose is to attack, critique, analyse and laugh at people who get it wrong, not write puff pieces about the 99.9% who do the right thing. Sophie^Wilder 21:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote this as a support page for the confabulation article. Go ahead and delete if people think it's a case of too much information, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Does it hurt anybody to have this article? Is RationalWiki worse off having this article? No. Deleting information is more easy than creating it... --larron (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is no more off-mission than our other articles on psychologists, + more informative & interesting than most. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the criteria should be whether the article supports the mission statement, or is neutral or contrary to it, not whether it is necessary to completion of the stated goals. There is no harm in having more examples than necessary to prove a point, and it neither detracts from nor is neutral to the mission statement; it is clearly an article that supports the mission. I agree that we wouldn't *need" this article to combat the anti-science movement, but every success of the scientific method is a refutation of the anti-science movement, and I think that RW is better off having that information than not having it.

Now, if this was about an obscure diplomat from the 1600s that did nothing of note, either for or against science, then I can see the need to remove it, because it offers no support for the mission (likewise, if it extolled on just the virtues of an historic crank). I think the distinction here is the difference between "mission supporting" and "mission critical". No, this piece is not "mission critical", but it does present someone who helped bring the scientific method to psychology, as well as distinguish that psychology and philosophy were two seperate disciplines; that is a significantly pro-science accomplishment. However, if your concern is more that it reflects a "puff piece" on the subject, then you can always edit the article to make it more accurate by including any negative aspects that might be used by the anti-science crowd. Reverend Lucifer (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree wiith Reverend. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

fine, let's write pointless articles on every scientist ever. Come back Felidae, all is forgiven. Sophie^Wilder 10:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

oooh ooooh I want an article! Ty^JFBAA 12:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the hostility. I invited you to explain why you feel this doesn't support the mission, and presented my opinion on why it did. So far, you have just stated that you think it doesn't fit the mission, accused it of being a "puff piece" and "pointless," but you have yet to present any arguments to support your position or to rebutt mine. I'm willing to consider your assertion, but simply calling it "pointless" is an ipse dixit fallacy, the exact type of thing that RW is opposed to.

To further bolster my claims that this is mission supporting, here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:

Ebbinghaus is also largely credited with drafting the first standard research report. In his paper on memory, Ebbinghaus arranged his research into four sections: the introduction, the methods, the results, and a discussion section. This clarity and organization of this format was so impressive to contemporaries that it has now become standard in the discipline and all research reports follow the same standards laid out by Ebbinghaus.

This is a man who developed the standard for the research report, the format that makes it easy to understand and evaluate things like conclusions, methodology, etc. Do you feel that this is an insignificant contribution to combatting anti-science and pseudoscience? Reverend Lucifer (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)