Talk:Pseudoskepticism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 1 September 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Reed gud

I reed gud but this articul dun mek no since. 02:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah agrees. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I third that motion.The Goonie 1 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Shall I take it out back and shoot it? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it just needs some love and care. If you don't want to fix, just pop it on the community chalkboard or the to-do list or something. - π 03:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not that i don't want to fix it--it's that I have no fuckin' idea what the hell it's supposed to be about. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Trent has been big on this recently, why not ask him? - π 03:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think, from what it appears I can understand, that it is supposed to be about people who dismiss skeptics as "pseudoskeptics" just because the skeptics won't "open their mind" to woo.The Goonie 1 (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism shouldn't have a letitamete use

It should follow the tone that the word "Pseudoscience" leads by making an easy lable to crackpot scientists, in this case crackpot head-in-sand. An ideal origin for the idea might be with Socratest attesting that he has to be a "stingfly" which propels the lazy ass into thinking.

"It is, however, sometimes used in its apparent meaning"

This is where I lose this thing--WHAT apparent meaning, as opposed to what is discussed in the 1st pgph? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I am having trouble wrapping my head around. How/when is it used in "its apparent meaning" and could examples be provided as to when it is used correctly, as opposed to when it's abused?The Goonie 1 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better definition?

"Pseudoskepticism is a loaded term used by promoters of woo to in order to dismiss skeptical criticism as unfounded" or something like that, and work our way from there, one step at a time?The Goonie 1 (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I like your sentence. ħuman 07:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Glad to be of help.The Goonie 1 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

While looking for more on this term I came across the WP talk page. Looks like a tricky one to define.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Skeptical/sceptical.

Goonie--it's not a typo. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. It appears we have yet another American vs. British English dialectical conflict. My mistake, but perhaps we should find a way to spell it and use that way consistantly throughout the article (which way, I don't care.)The Goonie 1 (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was using English without thinking - but I'm happy to go with US.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. In my defence, using different dialects in the same article is defenseless because it just doesn't look right (as my example shows). I was only changing it in the interests of whitewashing.The Goonie 1 (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious?

Are you guys serious on this [1] section, because if you are I could use mabye at WS. Because it's an unfunny caricature, or actually it's a caricature that would only be funny to the other side, and I'm not sure how serious you guys are about it. Tarantallegra (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Dunno who wrote it but it reads like sense to me. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Tarantallegra (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

You should put in some quotes to jazz this up. You've got to have some good ones. Tarantallegra (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rational wiki = Pseudoscience - some dumb BON

The following was added by a BON who deleted the rest of the talk page:

I love how the term pseudo distorisonan skeptical, his article is a complete string of opinions. Where is the relationship with Marcello Truzzi? Truzzi Was a charlatan? No, but you say Woo developers use it. Whether their articles and in itself is of lower quality than those of Wikipedia, this article get a ten on all matters relating to lies and justification. Best of all is its pseudo debate, to see who has the right, in a few words say nothing, are simply "arguments" in circles. Are complete pseudo scientists.^{— Unsigned, by: 189.191.39.84 / talk / contribs}

WTF? Even made into a proper post, this doesn't make any sense at all. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 21:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)