User talk:Manul

Welcome!

Hello, Vzaak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Not only "not reproducible evidence" - there is an unsupported assertion and a leaps of logic. Starting from an experiment which may (or may not) have anomalous results to the conclusion that such analogous results are not the result of (a) false positive (b) confirmation bias or (c) experimenter bias, is bad science. If you take this assertion at face value, you've got some unexplained results. Secondly, the vast rate of our increase in understand of developmental biology, isn't throwing up similar anomalous results. To go from these results to assertion that "energy fields" exist and that developmental biologists are barking up the wrong tree, that's the pseudoscience. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

$1m challenge

Hi. I have queried your change about DJ Groethe. Please clarify on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge. Thanks. Joolzzt (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment

" We were pretty sure that the second referee was, in fact, none other than Daryl Bem himself, a suspicion that the good professor kindly confirmed for us." [1]. Emphasis mine, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Other stuff

It seems to me that the TED controversy should probably be covered, as this reached the mainstream press. [2] Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Also: [3] Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Olive branch accepted

Thank you Vzaak for your honorable resolution to this issue and I look forward working with you again maintaining WP NPOV. See you on the page! The Tumbleman (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Trolls

if you have evidence that an editor is only here to troll, it may be worth clearly presenting your case at WP:ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban is probably appropriate if someone cannot contribute effectively. The problem is twofold (1) we get into repeated discussion of the same thing over and over again (2) it's impossible to discuss genuine issues in the article without being drawn into an argument Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to make sure you are on the same page, we are talking about this [4] and surrounding issues, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please understadn

Please understand

1. The inconsistency of Sheldrake's hypothesis with existing scientific theories, is the #1 reason why Sheldrake is wrong.
2. Sheldrake is critical to the public understanding of science - he doesn't do science, he talks woo, which narks off any scientist who has a genuine concern about public scientific literacy. It is this area in which the tedx, British Association, in which most of the controversy is generated.

Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wolpert 1984 reference supports the inconsistency statement.

The "lack of reproducible evidence" is wrong too. It's not that Sheldrake has evidence that others can't replicate, but rather that he doesn't have any evidence to begin with.

Meanwhile, the public understanding of science issue is critical, and the sources support this. Please check the sources. It is somewhat infuriating to spend hours finding and going through these sources, sorting the ideas out into what supports what, and then have it all reformulated in a way that doesn't make sense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your concerns about Rupert Sheldrake

I responded to your concerns regarding Sheldrake on the talkpage for him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Concerns_with_article The article, as it stands now, is a violation of the WP:RGW policy, since support for Sheldrake is given by solid sources.