Talk:Anthroposophy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

POV or fact?

I'm finding a LOT of POV in this article. There needs to be a substantial amount of editting to make this article conform to WP:NPOV. Jefffire 12:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Vis a vis the introduction: one of the world's largest educational systems grew out of anthroposophy. So did much of organic farming (biodynamics is one of the two sources of this movement). These are not POV, they are facts. And so on; the introduction as it stands is factual...whatever your POV on Waldorf, biodynamics, etc., they are effective and widespread movements that grew out of anthroposophy. Hgilbert 18:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiabilty. If these are facts, which I doubt, then you must substantiate them from a reliable source. Jefffire 19:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I did find much of Jefffire revision to be too skewed the other way. But it does seem like Anthroposophy has been verifiabily criticised as a cult, does not mean to say it is a cult but it has been criticised to that effect. This is a different criticism to the one which cult status deleted and they should both go in.

It is very verifiable that Steiner Education and Biodynamics share the same roots as anthroposophy, they all have Steiners name all over them. Whether Steiner Schools are one of the world largest, is debatable. Its also debatable as to the impact of biodynamics to organic agriculture, today these are largely seperate movements. --Salix alba (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Some anonymous edits got mixed in with mine. I'm working hard at the moment to remove pro and anti POV from the article at the moment although pro POV seems to be very much in dominance. Jefffire 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeffire -- The three MAJOR figures in Anthroposophy are Lucifer, the god of light, Ahriman the god of darkness, and Christ, the sun god who was sent to earth to balance these opposing figures. There is nothing in this whitewash nonsense about this. Or what about the fact that Michaelmas is Anthroposophist biggest holiday because they believe that St. Michael was the spirtitual ambassador of the "christ being" and the Steiner was the "earthly" ambassador of St. Michael? Or what about a major theme of Anthroposophy: that modern Aryans are from the advanced people of Atlantis? Or what about another major anthroposophic activity: the advent spiral, where they act-out (usually with children) the act of being reincarnated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs).

Yes, it is nonsense. But it is POV to call it nonsense. In an encyclopedia we list what they believe (making it clear these are beliefs). If they make a scientific claim then a scientific responce in appropriate. It is POV to call the beliefs rascist, what we do is accurately describe them and if people think they are rascist or not that is their judgement to make, not ours. Jefffire 12:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeffire -- My point is NOT that that anthroposophy is nonsense. My point is that the this presentation of anthroposophy has little resemblence to anthrposophy. The same misleading presentation is made to thousands of parents every day worldwide that are enrolling there children in a Waldorf school (that is if they are one of the lucky parents that are actually told that Waldorf schools teach Anthroposophy!) It is not a "critical comment" to say that anthroposophists believe in high fevers for children anymore that is a "critical comment" to say that catholics do not believe in the use of birth control -- both are facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs).

Some Catholics do believe in the use of birth control. You can say that the Vatican has declared that this is contrary to Catholic faith; you should then also mention that birth control is nevertheless used by many Catholics. There is no equivalent to the Vatican for anthroposophy, but neither the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society nor any other authoritative body within anthroposophy has ever made a ruling on high fevers. It comes down to individual doctors' recommendations.Hgilbert 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Religion is defined as a belief in the supernatural. Anthroposophy contains a belief in the supernatural. The Californian legal system does not define what universaly is and is not a religion. Antroposophy is a religion regardless of the opinions of the Californian legal system. By American law tomatoes aren't fruit, but we don't change the definition on Wikipedia because of that. Jefffire 10:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeffire -- The California Court's decision can't reasonably be interpreted as a ruling on whether or not anthroposophy is or is not a religion. The issue was whether PUBLIC waldorf charter schools were in anyway religious because of the thinly veiled anthroposophic practices at the schools in question. to Christianity and other religions. The plaintiff attorneys in the case did a shotty job of admitting evidence and witnesses and much of their case was thrown out purely on technical grounds and not on the merits of the case. That said, it is fairly easy --as we see in other public schools -- to find church and state loopholes by not being overtly religious, changing the names of religious celebrations, ect.

In a nutshell, Steiner recognized that convential religion were destructive and devisive -- a positive thing. So, Steiner created a "spiritual science" that he said was not a religion. This spiritual science incorporate the world's other major religions into Christianity by having Christ reincarnated several times and coming back as religion x's central god. So, instead of wandering how so many different religions can have different Gods and come away from it that religion is absurd, his conclusion was that all religions have the same god -- Christ. (I don't see anything about that view that is not religious.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs)

Steiner speaks of Christ having come to Earth only once. He recognized the essential unity of all religions, but did not say that their gods were identical. (See Steiner, Christianity as Mystical Fact.) Hgilbert 08:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The supposed quotation added to the introduction: "Christ is the central figure, but other religions and philosophies are incorporated as well." (Steiner, 1914) does not occur in the cited source; it is not clear where it comes from. Hgilbert 13:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert -- As of Friday, that quote was in the Steiner archives in the place where I cut and pasted it from -- but has since been removed. However, as you know, Steiner made similar quotes, including in the Gospel of St. John Lecture, where he said "Thus, for Anthroposophy, the central figure in the whole tableau of reincarnation, of the nature of man, of the survey of the cosmos, is the Being whom we call the Christ." http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GospJohn/19090630p01.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paka33 (talk • contribs)

It would be good practice to ensure that material set in quotation marks is exactly, not just similar to, what the person said.

I am moving one section of the introduction focusing on Steiner's ideas about Christ to the section on religion. The majority of Steiner's 40 books do not mention Christ at all, and in only two, I believe - Mysticism and Christianity as mystical fact (both relatively early works, from 1901 and 1902) does Christ or Christianity play a major role.

This is not to say that Steiner did not consider the Christ being of great importance, but in both his books and lectures this is one theme of a great many others, equally important. Should we include all these themes in the introduction - and that would be the honest alternative - it would be pretty top-heavy. Hgilbert 01:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to seem some more information about Steiners ideas about Christ because at the moment I am not convinced. It certainly seems from the quotes be had some special views on "the Christ" but I'm not sure how important these were to his beliefs. Relevent quotes here please. Jefffire 09:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction should be a balanced presentation of the subject. A paragraph on Steiner's relationship to the Christ impulse (as he called it) that is longer than the two brief paragraphs previously present is inappropriate; there is an entire section on this later on. I have moved the introductory material down.

If there is a desire to have material on his relationship to Christ, then there should be material on other special topics as well, and the introduction becomes an essay. I know that one or two editors have a special focus on this part of his philosophy, but the article should reflect anthroposophy's distribution of activity and interests, not any particular editor's. Hgilbert 15:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The material is fine lower down unless it can be established that Christ played a much more major part in Steiners religion than you propose. Jefffire 16:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Separate page on race and racism

In an effort to clear up the criticism section (see Jefffire's request above), I am moving the bulk of the discussion on race and racism to a linked page, Rudolf Steiner's views on races. I hope that this is satisfactory to all; the link is prominent and easy to follow. Hgilbert 09:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is altogether very much basis for accusations of rascism in Anthroposophy to warrent a ne wpage. If you give me a few days I'll try an rewrite the criticisms section so we can remove the NPOV tag. Jefffire 13:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Great; thanks, Jefffire. I know the section is a mess as it stands... Hgilbert 21:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we probably got off on the wrong foot. I hope to have a draft of the criticisms sections by friday. If it goes well I will remove the POV tag with it. Jefffire 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

With my apologies, I have had less time than I invisioned. I will not be able to rewrite the criticisms section until next week. Jefffire 20:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism on Steiner's work on grounds of racism has prominent academic support, yet it has been sidelined from the article to a sub page, linked from an italicised note. I have restored this to a sub section linking to the sub page. It deserves to be treated equally to the other lines of criticism. Lumos3 21:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I did not delete this category, but I think it is arguably a misnomer to call anthroposophy a pseudoscience. It does not pretend to be a natural science, but rather attempts to apply systematic research principles similar to those developed for natural science in the realm of inner or spiritual experience. An argument for calling it a pseudoscience would be that this is not possible; inner or spiritual experience is wholly subjective and thus an inappropriate object of scientific methodology. An argument against calling anthroposophy a pseudoscience is that it does not pretend to be doing natural science. Just as social sciences such as economics and political science are arguably "soft", i.e. not firmly based upon an empirical and experimental basis, yet are not considered pseudoscience because they clearly identify their objectives - and are not operating under false pretences - so the same could be claimed for anthroposophy.

The term "pseudoscience" has the perjorative connotation of a false presentation that seems unwarranted. Perhaps a less perjorative term could be found. Hgilbert 00:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anthroposophy presents itself as a science however. Is anouther name for it not spiritual science? I'll do a review of this when I rewrite the criticisms section anyway. You might have a point but I disagree at the moment. Jefffire 13:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophers such as Dilthey and Husserl advocated recognizing that there can be sciences (they used the term "Geisteswissenschaften", sciences of the mind/spirit/human being) that are not empirically based in outer perception, and yet are fully scientific. (The Wikipedia article on Dilthey mentions this briefly.) Steiner certainly was part of this (largely Germanic) philosophical tradition, and called anthroposophy a "Geisteswissenschaft" (humane science), not a "Naturwissenschaft" (natural science). Philosophers grounded in the German tradition would certainly have comprehended the distinction.

Geisteswissenschaft is the standard German term for what English-speaking peoples call the humanities. Steiner was thus calling what he did by the same name as the humanities generally go by in German, and what Dilthey defended as the "humane sciences": though neither quantitative nor empirical in the same sense as the natural sciences, yet qualitatively exact and rational. In his late period (cf. The Crisis of the European Sciences), Husserl used the word Geisteswissenschaft much as Steiner did: to refer to an explicitly spiritual science, not just the humanities generally. All of these thinkers believed that the natural sciences should not claim a monopoly on scientific approach; though the humane sciences would not copy their quantitative empiricism, they would still have a valid claim to the term 'scientific'.

Perhaps a completely different terminology would have to be found in English for this to be readily comprehensible to English-speakers. In any case, Steiner was speaking in the tradition of the Geisteswissenschaften and to declare his work pseudoscientific is badly to misconstrue his cultural context. Hgilbert 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I sort of agree now. However, I do think that category:religion should return. Jefffire 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We normally differentiate religions and spiritual movements, for good reason. Religions have, generally, rituals, dogmas, hierarchies, and places of worship; anthroposophy has none of these.

There is a religion started with Steiner's help, incidentally, called The Christian Community; he explicitly and carefully delimited this from his anthroposophical work. Hgilbert 02:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I do believe you are right. Jefffire 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

However on a slightly different strain, perhaps it would be appropriate to tag certain practical outlets of anthroposophy as pseudoscience, like the medicine article. Thoughts? Jefffire 16:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have to scream it from the hills to all connected with the pseudoscience article and categorizing scheme: we are not here to do our own creative philosophizing on what is and what is not pseudoscience, though this makes for prolix and never-ending discussions of the most interesting, albeit totally fruitless kind. Our questions should be: Are there citable sources for making the claim? Are there citable sources against the claim? If there is a sufficient imbalance between the pros and contras, we can claim conclusive (or pretty conclusive) unanimity; otherwise we should report the two sides. If there are no citable sources, why are we even talking about making the claim?

Secondly, and this is for the benefit of the prolix and never-ending discussions, because of the length of this talk page, I am pasting a list of journal articles about the use of mistletoe extract as an agent against cancer, suggested by Steiner in the 1920s and developed by his co-workers at that time; since then further developed by an array of anthroposophical researchers; presently used successfully far and wide outside anthroposophic circles, by many, many mainstream doctors, chiefly in Europe. Peer-reviewed references include (I can only list a small sample here):

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]
8. for background

I would say that this alone weighs in pretty decisively against any hasty categorization, even if we were to raise this forbidden (¡original research!) topic.Hgilbert 19:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Racism in anthroposophy

I am merging this section into the criticism section of the Rudolf Steiner article, as it refers to individual comments by RS, not to anthroposophy generally, or to other anthroposophical authors. Hgilbert 09:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you have also renamed the article Anthroposophy/Steiner's views on races to Rudolf Steiner's views on races. It looks like you are trying to distance the accusations of racism in Steiners work from Anthroposophy itself , yet Anthroposophy is mostly Steiner’s work. The link was also in the See also section not the article itself. This appears to be a public relations exercise. A link from this article would be justified or at least an explanation distancing the movement from the work of Steiner. Lumos3 09:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I saw the See also section becoming a collection of items that belonged elsewhere, and also thought that I had already changed the article 'Steiner's views on races' to a sub-article of the Steiner article (where it obviously belongs). There should be a link to this somewhere on the anthroposophy page, of course...and we just need to figure out where. It's a little tricky because anthroposophy is ever less and less "mostly Steiner's work"; look at a catalogue from an anthroposophical publisher, [8] for example, and you will see Steiner taking backstage to a large number of more recent authors. The accusations of racism in Steiner's work are pretty particular to him, rather than to the literally hundreds, perhaps thousands (in various languages) of other anthroposophical writers. I'll try to find an appropriate context for the link. Hgilbert 11:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the links, pages and added a reference in this article. Hgilbert 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hansson reference went with all the rest of the material onto the referred-to page. The treatment grew extremely long and the editors at the time (including Jefffire, if I remember rightly) agreed that it made sense to put it all in an easily findable location. It would violate NPOV to only put one side of the argument here and leave the other side on the other page. What is the problem with the link? Sub-pages of articles are an approved of way of including important information that would be too full for the main page.

An alternative would be to produce a balanced summary for this article. If you want to try this, go ahead; please look at the full treatment and give equal weight to all referenced material. Otherwise, the link seems a good solution.

I'll revert, but do feel free to place a balanced summary on the page, OK? Hgilbert 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your revision of the text is fine.Hgilbert 22:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe what needs to be explored more thoroughly here is whether or not Anthroposophy itself is a racist doctrine. If Anthroposophy is the collection of Steiner's teachings (it is) and Steiner's teachings made assumptions about the races that elevated one race over another (they did) then what argument can be produced that denies Anthroposophy is a racist doctrine or at least based on a set of racist ideas? --Pete K 16:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum for your suggestion and question. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk_page#Wikipedia_help

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject, even though they may seem inextricably linked." --Thebee 20:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is English your second language? When I said "I believe what needs to be explored more thoroughly here is..." the word "here" refers to THE ARTICLE. The article needs to explore this the topic of racism in Anthroposophy more thoroughly - as it is quite obvious, to me at least, that Anthroposophy is a racist doctrine. Unless you can provide some evidence that Anthroposohists have rejected Steiner's racist doctrine (you can't because they haven't), I think it needs to be mentioned prominently in the article. If we are going to have an article about Anthroposophy, it should certainly talk about what constitutes Anthroposophy. It's not just angels, you know. --Pete K 23:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides having a section on racism, which I think should be added, there are many racist statements about karma and reincarnation that Steiner has made that should be discussed here (in the article). Steiner's views about how man reincarnates through the races, for example, and man's physical development, the hardening of the body at verious stages of development causing the various races, man's evolutions through Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, etc. and how these are articulated in the races. There's lots of stuff that has been left out of this article that belongs here. --Pete K 23:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I see we're going to play the silence game here. OK, this week I will insert a section on Racism in Anthroposophy and include quotes from Steiner to support it completely. --Pete K 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If what you mean by racism in anthroposophy is alleged racism in Steiner's work, then this belongs in the Steiner article or the article devoted wholly to the topic of Steiner's views on race. If you have documentation of issues in anthroposophy beyond Steiner, they belong here. Hgilbert 15:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about racism in Anthroposophy - in subjects like reincarnation and karma - the foundations of Anthroposophy. This is not a Steiner issue, it's an Anthroposophy issue. Pete K 15:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not viable to add a section claiming racism exists in Steiner's works, representative of one point of view, and exclude any representation from another point of view. Feel free to supplement the point of view you already established, but please do not simply delete all representation of other points of view. It's up to the reader to decide whether Steiner's own words make it seem that critics have misinterpreted him. Hgilbert 17:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, of course, whether the Steiner supporters have misrepresented him. So, you're sure you really want to have a lot of quotes presented here? Not that it's really up to you - but if you insist, I'll start digging out the negro novel and French language quotes again. The article would be much better with the simple statement as I have tried to keep it. You are insisting on making this a big deal, not me. But again, you're in command here - so go for it. Pete K 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit again. "Racial bias has been identified in Steiner's work and the concept of racial hierarchies is present in Anthroposophy" is all it needs to say and this is very NPOV. A POV version of this would be "Racism is the foundation of Anthroposophy and Steiner believed the white race to be the race of the future while the "yellow" race was considered adolescent and the "black" race childish. Additionally, Steiner believed some races, native Americans and Semetic races, had outlived their usefulness." The sentence that is currently in the article talkes about racial hierarchies being present in Anthroposophy - that's really pretty tame by comparison. If you really, really don't agree that the article is better with a simple statement about racial bias found in Steiner's work, you should really take a deep breath and let someone else deal with this issue. That you continue to do this dispite the overview of the Arbitration Committee is amazing to me. Pete K 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the question of whether racial hierarchies are found in Steiner's work has been variously answered, to provide only one answer is clearly not NPOV. In addition, to mention the apparent racial bias of his characterizations of particular races without mentioning that he repeatedly and emphatically spoke out for the principle of racial equality is clearly a choice prejudicing the reader's impressions of the man's thought. I believe the present summary gives a brief but balanced picture of uncontroversial nature: it includes his general picture of racial equality and the bias apparent in his particular characterizations. Hgilbert 19:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You're not suggesting racial hierarchies are not found in Steiner's work are you. This would be absurd as his work is filled with this. In light of your attempt at a compromise, however, I've left a good portion of the ammended statement. He was not an "advocate" for equality among the races, he was the opposite in fact. He felt very comfortable pointing out that the races are NOT equal. So I've removed this cheerleading term from your wording as it is neither correct nor NPOV. It shouldn't be this hard to get one sentence to work. I just noticed you removed the citation that you asked me to provide. I assume this was an error. I'll add it back in. Thanks for compromising on this. Pete K 20:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The two cited persons (Waage and Bauemler) are not anthroposophists; the AS statement on diversity has an obvious relevance. Hgilbert 16:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, are you sure you want to expand this section? Because you know the minute you claim racism is NOT in Anthroposophy, we're headed back down a slippery slope. It's your call. In any case, doing this (as you insist on doing) during arbitration is probably not too smart. Add what you need to and I'll be back to add my stuff - and then the racism section can overpower everything else. It's up to you - but I really think you're better of with what was there before your edit. Pete K 16:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that the author of your latest addition (McDermott) also said: "Steiner’s thought, at its heart and in its spirit, is not at all racist.This is not to say that Steiner (or his transcribers) did not make mistakes, but it is to say that careful reading of the work would lead one to an appreciation of Steiner’s love of all children, regardless of race, creed, or color."[9] This is not to say that Steiner (or his transcribers) did not make mistakes, but it is to say that careful reading of the work would lead one to an appreciation of Steiner’s love of all children, regardless of race, creed, or color. Hgilbert 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The author, McDermott, produced an honest report. Later he was hounded by Anthroposophists who claimed his report was being used in devious ways and he was pressured into back-pedaling. Wouldn't be the first time Anthroposophists have done this [10]. I've read his work carefully - it says what I claim it says, and the quotes were not one-liner's, they were significant for the very reason that I suspected you would object to them. This is a valid quote and reference. Remember who decided we need to expand this section? Pete K 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

HGilbert, again, you seem to want to whitewash what has happened here. In the second paper by McDermott, he says:

"Three, the educational ideas of Rudolf Steiner (the founder of Waldorf schools) are really about the

wonders of all children. In 400 volumes of his thought, there are a handful of pages that to our modern ear sound terribly stupid and racist. This is a better percentage than can be found in American icons such as Thomas Jefferson and Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Steiner’s followers can at least point out that he, unlike Jefferson or Emerson, from within the confines of turn of the century Germany, had little information and no experience with African or African American children."

Gee, haven't we heard those arguments RIGHT HERE by proponents of Waldorf? The wording, even, is remarkably similar to the Waldorf-speak we hear. The comparisons to Jefferson and Emerson, the paraphrasing of the "difficult for modern ears" phrase that is in the Steiner article, the silly argument about the percentage of racist pages... this is all directly from Anthroposophist's de-bunking closet. The first report was the honest report, the second, a letter of apology after Anthroposophical pressure. Pete K 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Overlap with Rudolf Steiner article

(duplicated from Talk:Rudolf Steiner page). For me, at least, there has been some unclarity about what belongs in this article and what in Rudolf Steiner. I would like this to take some form now.

Steiner's ideas initially formed anthroposophy, but anthroposophy has had a rich existence and development apart from Steiner's own thought and work. I'd like to begin moving what is particular to Steiner into his article, and make the anthroposophy article less one-sidedly Steiner-centric.

This is a long-term project, probably. Any contributions or suggestions would be most welcome.Hgilbert 00:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There are very few attributions in Anthroposophical writing to new thinking outside of Steiner, but there are many commentaries on his work. If you can identify new thinkers, not commentators, who have contributed to Anthroposophy and can show they are publicly acknowledged as such then please do this. There is a danger, though, this could become original research , see Wikipedia:No original research. Lumos3 06:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There certainly are such figures aplenty: Steffen, Kolisko, Prokofieff, Schmidt-Brabant, Kranich, Bothmer, both Hauschkas, etc. It's a huge task because of the sheer number of these. The other question, however, is how much to duplicate content between the Steiner and anthroposophy page. I suppose for now there is a necessary overlap.Hgilbert 09:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit POF Reference

I have edited the opening paragraph which seeks to describe Anthroposophy using a reference from Philosophy of Freedom (1894) - which was written almost 20 years before Anthroposophy was conceived. I have replaced it with a reference from 1923 that says practically the same thing. Pete K 01:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a helpful edit, Pete (a novum!). I have made a few changes, however:

1. The important reference to the original source of the word belongs with the etymology; I have put it there.
2. Though the creation of Steiner, Anthroposophy is not solely connected with him - like existential philosophy with Kierkegaard - and the opening paragraph should be correspondingly inclusive.
3. The methodology of the Philosophy of Freedom is that of all of anthroposophy, and Steiner considered this to be his most important work. Both the original quote and the newly added one can stand! Hgilbert 10:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I don't mind moving this around. I don't agree with POF as a reference to Anthroposophy. I understand that it was perhaps his most important work - and certainly belongs referenced in the Steiner pages. But this article is about Anthroposophy and Steiner didn't "invent" anthroposophy until almost 20 years later - so I'm not buying that it is a reference AT ALL - that is suitable for the Anthroposophy article. If you want to say when he wrote Philosophy of Freedom, Steiner started formulating ideas that later became Anthroposophy (I disagree with this BTW as I think Anthroposophy wasn't conceived until his Theosophy period starting about 1900), you should reference it. I'll give you a day to consider how to word it before removing the POF reference again. I don't want to start an edit war over this - but the reference really is inappropriate unless you fully describe how it is being applied (does this sound familiar?). Also, I'm going to put "spiritual science" in quotes like we did in the Waldorf article - and for the same reasons. Pete K 13:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the sentence that is referenced in POF. I'll look for another sentence that is similar (even though the one I've already provided as a replacement IS similar) that is referenced to a work that was contemporary to Anthroposophy. Can you point me to a quote from Steiner that says POF represents or IS Anthroposophy? Maybe that will solve this for you. I don't think it's a big deal as the sentence itself isn't outrageous - but it doesn't seem proper to reference something that, say, George Patton said when he was at West Point and suggest he was talking about WWII. Pete K 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an understandable question, Pete. I have replaced the quote, adding a reference to a written work by Steiner, in which he states that his Philosophy of Freedom gives the epistemological basis for anthroposophy. I hope that you find this satisfactory supportive documentation. I grant that this may not have been self-evident either to you or to readers of the article, and think it is an improvement to have faced this question. Hgilbert 18:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look. Pete K 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner did say that anthroposophy is based on the principles in Philosophy of Freedom. "Anyone interested in looking for them will find the basic principles of Anthroposophy already enunciated in this book." Steiner first publicly used the term, "anthroposophy", around 1903. Steiner didn't time The Philosophy of Freedom to coincide with the unveiling of a new social movement like it was some kind of a marketing gimmick to peddle to new members, so the timing isn't strange. Nevertheless, the principles outlined in the book served as the philosophical foundation, in Steiner's view. Venado 21:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Nobody suggested anything about marketing gimmicks. There is currently a discussion going on at the Waldorf Critic's list about how unlike KOW, POF does NOT reflect Anthroposophy to a great degree - especially in the occult material. It might be a good read for anyone interested. Here's a link but the discussion starts before and continues after this entry. Anyway, the sentence can stand as it is in the article now as it has been proofed in GA21. Pete K 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Cesnur article external link/citation

I changed an external link in the Anthroposophy#Religious_nature section to a citation, since that seemed to be how it was used. I'm not sure whether the site is a valid source or not - someone with more experience in this area may was to double check - but the previous format with text hyperlinked to an external page was awkward, if the site does not qualify as a source, perhaps a note like the following 'as written up in 'link' ' would be more appropriate? Or find a new source or remove the reference altogether. --Spyforthemoon 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Category pseudoscience

Since there are questions as to the scientific legitimacy of this subject, I have categorized the article with pseudoscience. Note that this does not necessarily mean that the subject actually is objectively pseudoscience, only that some have considered it to be such. --ScienceApologist 14:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

if that is general policy of handling this category, then there is something wrong with it. i am sure that to the casual reader it does not come across like that but rather that anthroposophy is classified as pseudoscience. i don't even have a problem with that assesment in general but nevertheless i found it just a cheap grafitti kind of way to popooh anthropop. i'd prefer if you could rather introduce a section that argues where anthroposophy is not in line with science and where it has antiscientific aspects. not being able to argue that through and just stick on the label pseudoscience is not good enough. if you don't have anything better to show i will remove the cat. but i would support a section as i described. but something more elegant than 'however many consider it...'trueblood 13:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the general way the category is handled, trueblood, and since there is ample evidence that people consider it a pseudoscience, I ask you to leave the tag alone. I am in favor of a new section outlining the pseudoscientific nature of anthroposophy. --ScienceApologist 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

well, can you elaborate a little on the it is the general way to be handled theme. where can i see that it is how you say it. because on this talk page the issue already popped up but without the result that the tag would be appropiate.trueblood 16:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 16:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

at wp:words to be avoided i found three categories that might apply to the term:

• Are derogatory or offensive.
• Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint.
• Are condescending towards (that is, "spoonfeed") the reader.

trueblood 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not spoonfeeding if the concept is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community (which this subject is). See List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. --ScienceApologist 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

followed your link to the abitration, and found that your statement "that some have considered it to be such" in conflict with that.trueblood 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC) for instance: Questionable science 17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

trueblood 17:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A "substantial" following? Anthroposophy has no substantial following. Psychoanalysis has a substantial following. Anthroposophy has 50,000 followers world-wide. And maybe half of those consider it to actually be "science". That's not a "substantial" following of the type the psychoanalysis example is and Anthroposophy certainly does not have the support among scientists that psychoanalysis has. This is grasping at straws. Pete K 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Equating the acceptance of anthroposophy with that of psychoanalysis is highly inappropriate. I think if you disagree you should try to get a third opinion or file an WP:RfC. --ScienceApologist 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Trueblood, but see it as part of a much larger problem; the category 'pseudoscience' is being widely applied for fields which anybody citable considers to be pseudoscientific. This is an example of systemic bias in Wikipedia that needs to be addressed. Hgilbert 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"This is an example of systemic bias" in the generally valiantly NPOV Wikipedia "that needs to be addressed." yes, absolutely! The curiosity is that NPOV reaches towards an intensity of neutrality that Rudolf Steiner actually taught me even more about than I learned in Science or in Psychology - and I'm a good scientist and a trained counsellor - and studying "Philosophy of Freedom" was the key to this for me, taken in context of studying Steiner's work overall and seeing, yes, here is a genius who has not been properly recognized. I've lived 40 years (outside Steiner communities) since discovering Steiner, and have almost never found a genius to equal him. The problem with Wikipedia (and I don't want to change its setup because usually it works) is that it would not be NPOV as normally understood to gather together similar character references to Steiner from suitable people like Canon Shepherd. Lucy Skywalker 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And conversely, the label of science is being equally sought by anybody who wants to apply it to any mumbo-jumbo they consider "scientific". Anthroposophy is NOT science, it's philosophy mixed with a little religion and occultism. Pete K 02:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

scienceapologist i was not convinced by your argument and you gave the link for the abitration process, which did not convince me either. i don't like your if you don't like your if-you-don't-agree-with-edits-you-better-leave-it alone-or-try-a-rfc. why don't you try a rfc. i invite you argue the case here and in the article, improve the anthro and science section. say where or why anthroposophy conflicts with science. i'd support that. until then i remove the pseudoscience cat. just the cat is graffiti or territiorial pissing.trueblood 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This kind of advocacy is highly inappropriate. The article already illustrates in its very text the problems this subject has had with reception in the scientific community. There is no reason to violate spade clauses. I'm more than willing to help develop the article, but I'm not willing to have anthroposophy-cheerleaders assert article ownership. Pseudoscience categorization is not controversial when the scientific community considers it pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

i am not trying any kind of advocacy or cheerleading here but i find your editing too confrontational. to just put in the cat to me is teritoiral pissing. i thought on of the outcomes of the abitration was a recommendation to you to avoid this kind of stuff.trueblood 11:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science but is in conflict with modern science and does not hold up to basic scientific standards. so when anthroposophy is pretending to be science that is in fact pseudoscience. but it is more, it is about education, agriculture, art etc; and as pete put it it is it's philosophy mixed with a little religion and occultism.

i have a problem with this whole category. is catholicism pseudoscience or tai chi, yoga... can i put the cat in the article on plato or c.g. jung or how about philosophy in general? why should anthroposophy carry the labem pseudoscience but not theosophy for example?trueblood 12:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the category, talk about it at Category: Pseudoscience. If you think theosophy has been verifiably labeled a pseudoscience, go ahead and categorize it. --ScienceApologist 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unlike catholicism, tai chi, yoga, plato or jung, Anthroposophy was stated by Steiner to be a "Spiritual science". A way of investigating the world of the spirit using the methods of science. This is clearly reported in the opening line of the article. Its not actually a science so its a pseudoscience. Lumos3 13:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether anthroposophy applies scientific methodology (e.g. the systematic application of reason) to spiritual experience, as Steiner claimed. He did not claim it was a natural science. Geisteswissenschaft, Steiner's word in German, is normally applied to history and anthropology in their broadest sense, for example (not just as empirically-based sciences).

Not everything that is not a natural science is a pseudoscience. Hgilbert 17:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

True. Some things are neither science nor psuedoscience. Some ideas are philosophy, others are just BS. Anthroposophy does not apply scientific methodology - and scientific methodology consists of much more than "systematic application of reason". In fact

the "systematic application of reason" is exactly philosophy. But Steiner's systematic application of reason left no room for peer review. In fact, he specifically excluded himself from peer review by stating that the only people who could evaluate his were were, essentially, Anthroposophists. This, from the outset, excluded scientists (not that any serious scientist would be interested in examining the set of ideas Steiner postulated. You are trying to change the definition of science so that Steiner fits into it. This is nonsense. Pete K 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You say that "Anthroposophy does not apply scientific methodology" but I would challenge the accuracy of your observations on which you make this claim. It is my careful and extensive and informed observation, over 40 years, that Anthroposophy is not at odds with scientific method, which relies on a) consistently careful observation; b) drawing reasonable hypotheses from the observations; and c) being open to further evidence that might challenge the hypotheses. Now Steiner himself asked people NOT to believe what he said but to test it for themselves. The fact that Anthroposophists sometimes choose belief over testing does not mean that this is what Steiner encouraged. He did not say, as you claim, "the only people who could evaluate his were, essentially, Anthroposophists"; what he said was that he spoke of what he had himself experienced and that if another did not experience the same thing, this was no proof in itself that what he had said was untrue. It is a delicate matter to grasp the different scientific validities of both positive proof and negative absence of disproof. One analogy is that I do not claim that Australia does not exist because I have not been there. I have examined the matter, and have found it reasonable to take the evidence of others as a working hypothesis. Which is what I have done with Steiner, and have sometimes arrived at different conclusions. But he taught me the method - to observe what was going on "within" with the same very great care as one would apply to conventional scientific observations, and, indeed, as the whole of modern psychology has taught us to begin to do with our inner realities. There is a growing number of scientists who see that certain factions in the scientific world claim objectivity where they, as equally respected and qualified scientists, disagree with such claims to "objectivity", see for example [[11]] I hope this helps the discussion Lucy Skywalker 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is just a problem of translation, why do Anthroposophical societies continue to mistranslate the term into the English word Science [12], [13]? This looks like an attempt to draw on the authority of western science but without subscribing to its rigour, which is the precise definition of a pseudoscience. Lumos3 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the English word science is also not limited to natural science: the OED's definitions, for example, include 1) "Knowledge of cognizance of something", 2) "Knowledge acquired by study", 3) "A particular branch of knowledge or study", 4) "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified...and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain", 5) "The kind of knowledge or of intellectual activity of which the various 'sciences' are examples". Definition 5b is the only one that is more particular; it states: "In modern use, often treated as synonymous with 'Natural and Physical Science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws..." What you (and many others) think of as science is only one of its many meanings - not even a particularly prominent one (5b in a list of 6) in the view of the OED editors! Hgilbert 19:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

it is not a problem of translation, when talking about geisteswissenschaft, steiner did not mean the humanities, what the german term also stands for, but as hgilbert put it A way of investigating the world of the spirit using the methods of science. so spiritual science is an accurate translation. but i thought that is somewhat beside the point, investigating the world of spirit is outside science. i thought the pseudoscience label was more about conclusions or observations by steiner that are in contrast with science but concern wordly matters, like vitalism, biological transmutation,... the category is a detail, and i will stop to hassle about it, i found more important that those contraction of modern science are reflected in the article. "Some ideas are philosophy, others are just BS", pete you are wrong with that i think, a lot of philosophy would be considered pseudoscience if uttered today, using the standards that are used here. that is one reason why i don't like the category,, for instance lamarckism is in it. poor lamarck, lamarckism is just a superseded scientific theory. but at the time it was cutting edge science. but that is out of context here.trueblood 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, then we have to get into the debate about whether ever word that Steiner uttered represents Anthroposophy. I don't think it does and there is a debate currently at waldorfcritics.org that suggests that Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom should not be included as part of his body of work that is regarded as Anthroposophy. Regardless of what you think of poor Lamarck's work, if it were presented today as fact would be considered psuedoscience. Anyway, are you no longer disputing that the psuedoscience tag is accurate? Pete K 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know what edition of the OED you are using but mine clearly labels the other, more generalised meanings as archaic. The Anthroposophy sites make no effort to show they are using the word in an archaic way. This article itself states right at the start that Anthroposophy uses the methodology of science. There is no ambiguity here. Anthroposophy tries to lay claim to being a science in the modern sense and in so doing makes itself a pseudoscience. Lumos3 12:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

1978. In this edition, none of those I list above are labeled 'archaic'; #1 is listed as being used chiefly in a theological and philosophical sense nowadays, however. Definitions #2, #3, #4, #5 are listed without qualification in my edition. Check again and note that subdefinitions (such as 3d) are separately defined and categorized from the main definitions. I'd be surprised if four definitions have become declared archaic in a quarter-century. Hgilbert 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What might surprise you is not relevant to this discussion. If you have a copy that isn't 30 years old, maybe you should check that one and WP:AGF before disputing what another editor has posted. Pete K 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)