User talk:Hrafn

Faith vs. experiment

As someone who did a personal experiment to confirm the effect of homeopathy, I find it hard to credit your claims that only blind faith justifies belief in homeopathy. —Whig (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone with a background in statistics, and some knowledge of the scientific method, I find it hard to credit your claims that your "personal experiment" (i.e. an 'experiment' with a sample size of one, and no scientific protocols) proves anything at all, other than the power of the very "blind faith" you are disclaiming. Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My wife is a statistician, so I'm not uncomfortable with your model. However, empirical methods are just as much science. I do not propose you accept homeopathic potency on the basis of my testimony, but I'm confident that what I did is fully replicable by anyone interested in doing so. —Whig (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Then ask your wife her opinion on any statistical test with a sample size of one -- they are always complete bollocks. "Empirical methods" are necessary but not sufficient for scientific validity, even assuming that your experiment could be considered "empirical" given the very subjective nature of evaluating your own state of health. The problem is not whether it is "replicable" or not, but that what would be replicated lacks any scientific meaning. You clearly have no idea as to what is involved in setting up a genuine scientific experiment, so I would suggest that you stop digging yourself into a deeper hole on this issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're confused. Statistics are just one analytical tool. From a physics background, statistics are generally only relevant at the quantum level. I did not perform a statistical test nor purport to have done so. —Whig (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not confused, you are talking through your hat -- statistics is crucial for evaluating the efficacy of medical treatments, and I would be very surprised if you could find any mainstream medical research on the topic that did not make use of statistical testing. Likewise your purported "physics background" is fatally flawed if you are unaware of the relevance of statistics to a wide range of physics fields beyond those dealing with things at the quantum level. Read Statistical physics & Statistical mechanics and leave me alone. You have proved yourself to be completely ignorant on this topic, and I have no wish whatsoever to discuss it further with you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Michele Sinclair

Thanks for adding those citation tags; I didn't know about those. I have absolutely no vested interest in this article, and I'd almost like to see it deleted just so I didn't have to deal with it anymore. The article appears to have been created by the author herself, and two IPs have edited since then. All three of them(?) are/have been adding copyrighted material, and my goal has just been to get the copyvio stuff out so that we don't get in bigger trouble. I wonder if an AfD might be a better way to go. The person/people adding all the copyvio stuff apparently don't know enough to try to remove the prod tag, but I'm afraid if this gets deleted via prod then it might be recreated again right away. Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an AfD will probably be eventually necessary for this article. However based on previous experience, I prefer to let an article settle as much as possible first, to minimise the inevitable the flood of attempts to establish notability, and resultant need to evaluate reliability/relevance of new sources, in the middle of the AfD. So I tag & whittle away the dross as a first step. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Like a barnstar, but different

You know how sometimes you hate checking your watchlist, especially when you see some anonymous IP has edited your favorite articles? The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person that, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world, you can relax, and do something besides cleaning up another mess.

WLU (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Politicization of Science

Dear Hrafn, This entry represents some of my core thinking over the past twenty years as a secondary science educator and a graduate student. Ultimately it has been quite well regarded. Do you understand what I am saying? Can you give me clear examples of extreme POV?

I refuse to be called an evolutionist or a proponent of intelligent design. Instead, I claim to be a voice for stark intellectual honesty.

Do you believe that evolutionary theory, absent a theistic tradition, would be presented so forcefully to young minds or effectively placed beyond falsifiability?

My point is not that ID is valid, but that evolution as we are required to present it in the classroom, amounts to junk science in itself. That dissenting opinions (by experts) and a body of contrary evidence may not be presented, and that this has resulted from a legal ruling, is a great example of the other side of this issue. In both cases, science is politicized--and I really believe that we are all the worse for it.

I will gladly consider incorporating any suggestions you may have for me. I am glad to modify my entry to adhere to the standards of Wikipedia. Sincerely, Scseig (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Scseig: your proposed section is nothing more than a collection of ignorant creationist stereotypes. As such, it has no place in a wikipedia article. One example of its fallacious nature is your absurd claim that "The scientific establishment treats evolution as a sacred and inviolable truth". Read the article on the history of evolutionary thought to see how much this "sacred and inviolable truth" has changed. There are dozens more examples, but a point-by-point rebuttal would be a waste of my time. I pity your poor students being subjected to such an ignorant and blinkered 'educator' as yourself, and can only assume that those by whom you are "well regarded" have had little exposure to genuine science. A "theistic tradition" has no place in public school science classes, per the Establishment clause. By describing the painstaking and robust research of hundreds of thousands of researchers as "junk science" you "bear false witness" and do grave disservice to both science and religion. It is rather your claims that are "junk". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one last point -- the "dissenting opinions" are neither legitimate "contrary evidence" nor presented by legitimate "experts" -- but rather dishonest distortions and misrepresentations by a bunch of charlatans who rarely have any relevant expertise. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Creation according to Genesis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please note that the reverts you have performed in rapid succession are detracting from the quality of the article. The last one, under the guise that a previous edit's summary was misleading, was particularly unfounded. There were two successive edits, the second of which legitimately restored erroneous piping in a link (as suggested by the edit summary), and the first of which restored the term "conservative", which is broader than "fundamentalist" and covers more people who hold the view, correctly restored the term "theory" in association with theories of authorship, and correctly restored the appropriate grammar to a sentence that had gone afoul. Please do not revert again, and take it to the discussion page if you want to introduce these changes back to the article. HokieRNB (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think reverting three repeated poorly explained/unexplained edits (edit summaries: "dab"/no explanation/"Reverted 1 edit by Hrafn; Restoring the most recent least POV version", masked by " fixing error with piping") that lacked any apparent verification or substantiation, to make the same changes, in more than 24 hours counts as "edit warring". Please don't blame me for your own & your compatriots' inability to articulate your rationale. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. The first two edits I made to this article were perfectly legitimate edits. The first one restored the good faith edits that had been made which removed bias by properly referring to the hypothesis as a theory (which needs no verification, as it is a self-evident fact... something labeled "hypothesis" is by nature a theory), and by properly referring to a group of adherents to a view by a less-loaded term. The second one was to fix piping in a wikilink. That's what I put in the edit summary. Please don't rush to conclusions about my intentions, nor about who may or may not be my "compatriots". Thanks. HokieRNB (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please desist in spamming my talkpage with spurious templates. I was not edit warring and expecting a meaningful explanation of potentially controversial edits is not assuming bad faith. Your conduct here borders upon harassment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You must be kidding. You had reverted three times within 30 hours, and I issued a warning to remind you not to do it again. That's not spurious. Then you accused me of "masking" my edit summaries, which does not assume good faith, so I issued the lowest-level possible warning about that. Again, not spurious. The explanations that I provided on the article in question were meaningful in both cases. In the first one, I made it clear that restoring the previous edits were, in my opinion, a vote in favor of NPOV. In the second one, I made it clear that I was fixing a broken pipe in a link. Please stop accusing me and go back and read what is actually there. HokieRNB (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No I am not "kidding". I reverted three poorly explained/unexplained edits in 30 hours. That is not edit warring. I ceased after you actually bothered to articulate a meaningful explanation. Mentioning the "masking" was not an accusation (if it had been I would have said "deliberately masking"), but simply pointing out that this de-emphasised the (not particularly informative) prior explanation of "Reverted 1 edit by Hrafn; Restoring the most recent least POV version". Now would be so kind as to stop making a mountain out of a molehill!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 05:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hrafn, your work in keeping a lid on these changes is greatly appreciated and accusations of edit warring are out of line. Glad to see that the proposals are now being justified and discussed on the talk page, as was appropriate at the outset. .. dave souza, talk 08:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious Science

I do believe the article needs to be improved. But to tag it for deletion is extreme. I do believe a tag for references is indicated. Religious Science is an organization of over a thousand churches in the US and many more around the world. I noticed you deleted Divine Science a smaller org.JGG59 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

JGG59. as discussed on your talk page, reliable secondary sources are needed. .. dave souza, talk 18:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, it's not tagged for deletion, it's tagged for notability, which simply means that "If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion." If you want to improve the article then you are welcome to do so. I would suggest you read WP:NOTE & WP:ORG first, so that you can concentrate your improvements in areas that will establish notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you eliminate my edits?

Although I'm a new editor on Wikipedia and am making some mistakes, I am a long-time member of our local Religious Science Center, and am the webmaster of its website. I'm trying to add much needed references and to update the terminology and information on the Religious Science page of Wikipedia. If you disagree with some of the edits, I welcome a discussion. If I don't hear from you soon, I'll go ahead and re-instate my changes. Thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because you signed in mainspace -- see the template I left on your talkpage. The two references you gave weren't particularly useful (one of the two was for the mere existence of a book) or reliable -- see WP:RS. If you are "a long-time member of [y]our local Religious Science Center" then you have a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific

I really think I have added references (as requested) and made uncontroversial edits. If you don't agree, please specifically tell me how it can be improved...or which sections are unacceptable to you. This is getting very frustrating...there are only a limited number of hours per day to do this. Thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This piece was completely unsourced:

In 1953 the Church of Religious Science split into two organizations, known today as the United Centers for Spiritual Living, or UCSL (formerly the United Church of Religious Science, or UCRS), and Religious Science International, or RSI. RSI cites the cause of the split as "differences in approach to corporate structure and church administration." UCSL is based in Burbank, California and currently led by Rev. Kathy Hearn. RSI is based in Spokane, Washington and currently led by Dr. Kenn Gordon. On September 11, 2007, the Board of Directors of Religious Science International and the Core Council of the United Centers for Spiritual Living met in Los Angeles, CA, and voted to begin a process of integration into a single organization once again. There is no specific timetable for this to occur, however, there will be ongoing activity to bring various aspects of the two organizations together. Global Religious Science Ministries, or GRSM, was founded by former RSI ministers who envisioned an expanded definition of ministry. GRSM is based in Silver Spring, Maryland and currently led by Rev. Lisa Marks. In addition, there are some smaller branches, as well as independent Religious Science churches. The teachings of the branches are generally similar and the organizations collaborate on events.

The source that you gave, www.scienceofmind.com, did not verify this statement that you attributed to it:

which can be found in most large book stores and includes inspirational articles and daily readings/affirmation by ministers, celebrities, and other metaphysical teachers; as well as a list of member Centers.

The other "reference", "<ref>"The Science of Mind" latest edition 2007, Wilder Publications</ref>", was basically superfluous (and did not give any useful information, like ISBN number).

Further, you have conflict of interest on this article, so should not be editing it AT ALL! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I'll work on it

Thanks for your constructive critique...and your patience (since I'm a newbie to this). I will make the changes you suggest. May I send them to you first before publishing them? I can copy and paste them into this page.

With regard to your "conflict of interest" concern, please be assured that I am only trying to reflect the latest evolutionary thinking of Religious Scientists. You may consider me an "expert" since I've been devoted to the teaching since the 1970's, have taken many courses on the subject, and have many Religious Science friends who have come from various backgrounds. Our center has belonged to both UCSL (formerly UCRS) and RSI. I promise to try to be totally objective in my future re-write. If I'm not, please let me know.

Sincerely, --Wonbillions (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI means that you should not edit articles on organisations you're involved in (which is clearly the case with yourself and Religious Science). From wikipedia's viewpoint you are not an "expert" but rather a potential partisan. If you want to see material/sources considered for the article, then you should place them on the article talkpage and allow an unconflicted editor to evaluate them for inclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This should satisfy requirements

[Have moved this material to Talk:Religious Science Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC) ]

I hear you

I agree with some of what you're saying...It would be nice to have a more esoteric discussion of Religious Science...but I think most people are not students in comparative religions...they just want to know how it would affect their lives. I agree that some of the original text gets a bit long winded (not MINE, of course), but your strike-outs go way too far. When I have time, I will provide a counter proposal, and address your concerns about some of the references. Gotta go. Thanks, --Wonbillions (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wonbillions: could you please place further comments related to the same subject as subsections of your original top-level section. It helps to keep the conversation coherent. Thanks. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn: I don't know which section you mean, or how to get there. Do you mean on the Religious Science Talk page or this one? --Wonbillions (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This one, if you are continuing on from a topic you have already raised here -- you click on the "[edit]" next to "Why did you eliminate my edits?" & add a new subsection at the bottom of it with "=== New-section-name ===". If it is a continuation of discussion of proposed changes then it should be on Talk:Religious Science. Also, if the conversation is just a continuation of previous discussion, it is acceptable to simply include it in the already-created section. What I am objecting to is the repeated creation of new, un-nested, sections on the same topic.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn....OK, I get it now. Thanks for the tips.--Wonbillions (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tag placement dispute

For your information, I've filed this complaint concerning your actions in our ongoing dispute regarding the proper placement of the clean-up tag on Old Earth creationism. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've commented there, where the tag goes is the least of the article's problems and hope that you can both relax and see some improvements made rather than escalating a minor disagreement. .. dave souza, talk 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate Reference

What sort of reference are you looking for re the YEC assertion that the earth is 5800 years old? --Nowa (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Something a bit more authoritative on Young Earth Creationism than "a monthly Islamic magazine published in Bangalore." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Just to be sure I am clear on what's needed, however, what we are looking for is an authoritative source that supports the statement that it is a common position among YECs that the earth is no more than 5800 years old. Correct?--Nowa (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that Islamic Voice is not the best reference for this particular article, but it is a recognized source for Wikipedia for both Islamic and non Islamic issues. Take a look at Google search for "Islamic Voice" in English Wikipedia.--Nowa (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to the point, how does this look? [1]

Actually, looking at Ussher chronology, does the assertion even need a citation?--Nowa (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ussher chronology lists the Creation at 4004 BC, making the Earth 6012 years old, not 5,800. There are a number of calculations, my point being that we need references for both the highest and lowest number that has any authority/acceptance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we have an authoritative reference for 6012 years old, why not change the 5800 to 6012?--Nowa (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like 5800 is by Jewish reckoning. See Dating Creation--Nowa (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That is one option. However, I'm not sure that most YECs accept Ussher as authoritative. I'm fairly sure that a lack of a solid consensus among them is what led to there being a range rather than a single number in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Çreation in Genesis

Reverting already! Wow you're fast! Give us a chance, I'm still working on it. PiCo (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to "work on it" then do so in a sandbox, until it is referenced -- mainspace is not the place for unreferenced statements, let alone unreferenced sections. WP:V does not have an 'I'll get around to it soon' exception. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And because I love stalking talk pages, I'll add my two cents. WP:PROVEIT says the burden is on the adder to justify the information, not the remover. And sub-pages will allow you to draft a version that you can work on with full wiki markup, unhindered by policy or reverts. On top of that, you can solicit other editors for their opinions before establishing a final draft version. WLU (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Creationism

You have vandalized a perfectly valid and referenced, and not irrelevant, addition to these pages. Please try not to do this again. Mike0001 (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of WP:OR is not "vandalism". Please familiarise yourself betrer with wikip[edia policy before you start throwing around accusations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no OR there! Mike0001 (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You have no WP:RS stating that the research may impinge upon creationism, so the claim is purely WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for creationism, so it figures there would be an article on it! LoL Mike0001 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)