User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived Old talk pages for various anon users[edit]

Scientific consensus[edit]

- Hi. I reverted your changes to the scientific consensus article. It was both clearly a violation of WP:NPOV, and historically inaccurate. To use Copernicus, Galileo, and Wegener as typical of science (all three were clearly exceptions, which is why they are notable), much less to say that "scientific consensus" was used to "silence" them, is historically incorrect. Galileo did not run into troubles because of scientific consensus (he ran into troubles with religion and the state), and Copernicus did not run into troubles because of consensus of the scientific community either. Wegener is a very interesting case—perhaps one of the few where you can legitimately point to "scientific consensus" as being that which kept his ideas from being accepted for many years—but it is clearly the exception, not the rule (it is precisely because it is this exception that it is so interesting). In any case, the article well explains the ups and downs of conservatism in science without being POV about it, and even has a nice little list at the bottom of ideas which were in their time squashed by the scientific community but are now seen as true, and I saw no benefit in your proposed changes over the existing text, even if they were made accurate (which would essentially render them void). Hope that makes sense. --Fastfission 19:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC) - - I never said Copernicus, Galileo, and Wegener were TYPICAL of science, I used them as EXAMPLES of how consensus had been used to persecute and discredit scientific thoughts and hypotheses of skeptics by political and religious powers that be, and during Galileo and Copernicus' time, religion and the science powers were one and the same, so that is no difference from the dogma practiced today by the NAS and NRC who seek to discredit and demonize AGW skeptics, for example, by citing "consensus". - - :As examples they are historically inaccurate. Neither were persecuted on the basis of the opinion of the scientific community. You don't seem willing even try to participate in our WP:NPOV policy, so you might as well just not contribute. Your edits will be reverted and you will probably just end up getting blocked. Just FYI. Labeling people who disagree with you, and those who take the time to explain why they've reverted obviously unbalanced POV additions, as "vandals", is pretty poor form, and shows a lack of a willingness to work with others, which is a key principle on here. --Fastfission 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC) - - :This edit, by the way, I consider to be blatant vandalism. Knock it off if you want to participate here. --Fastfission 01:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC) - - :I've blocked this IP for a week for blatant vandalism after a warning. Perhaps you can find something better to do with your time; surely you realize this is a boring and losing game for you. --Fastfission 02:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC) - - :And for the record, Copernicus was not a monk, nor was religion science in his (or Galileo's day). It's a bit more complicated than that, to begin with, and even if that were true it would still not warrant them being listed as evidence of people being suppressed by "scientific consensus" in any respects. If you are interested in actually learning something about Copernicus or Galileo, I recommend our articles on them at: Copernicus, Galileo. They aren't perfect but they're miles closer to true understanding than you seem to be. --Fastfission 02:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC) - - You are wrong Mr. Fats fusion, read this and educate yourself, there are numerous references nOT in Wikis that you and your allies control. - - But you knew that, you are a fool. - - :I don't have "allies" on here in any formal sense (there are people I find to be agreeable and often have good judgment, but that's about it), and I don't "control" the Wiki in the slightest (we try to make sure all content goes along with our policies, I hardly see the crime in that). I'm just another editor. As it happens, I'm a historian of science. If you'd like some legitimate, respectable, and verifiable sources on Copernicus, feel free to ask. The page you have there is not real history, it is a holdover from 19th century wars between religion and science which reinterpreted all of the history of science through the lens of conflict with religion (see the conflict thesis if you are interested). Historians have had a much more clear vision of that for some time now. - :But right, I'm the fool, because I use real books for my sources and not one paragraph of text cropped from a "this day in history" website. I'm the one who doesn't know how to use sources. Come on now. If you are going to pretend that you are some sort of intellectual force battling against conformity (something which all cranks and hacks seem to think) you could at least try to pretend to be intellectual, or at least intellectually honest. You're putting up a pretty poor display at the moment. --Fastfission 14:25, 11 July 2006 - (UTC) - - - OK, so you claim that Copernicus was NOT a monk, priest or have any connection to the church? Perhaps you should correct the Encyclopedia Britannica then (that is a real encyclopedia with real scientists and academic experts as reviewers, not a bunch of self appointed hacks with time on their hands like Wiki, and BTW it's poor form to reference your own heavily controlled references in Wiki as a source), for it says;" After his father's death, sometime between 1483 and 1485, his mother's brother Lucas Watzenrode (1447-1512) took his nephew under his protection. Watzenrode, soon to be bishop of the chapter of Varmia (Warmia), saw to young Nicolaus's education and his future career as a church canon. In fact, of course, it was the Pope who asked him to study the solar system, expecting an outcome not what he received. - - And, if you really think that the 1500s and 1600s were times when the church didn't have the majority of scientists and scientific education (remember who controlled the universities and education) then you are certainly outside the teachings of any of my three university degrees from three well known universities, for I have not seen your facts to back that up and I was not taught that in all my scientific education. And although I do not teach science history (just science, mostly stable isotope geochemistry, climatology and paleo-climatology), I often refer to the issues I have tired to correct in Wiki in my classes, for there as many historic similarities to the way AGW skeptics are being treated today. I am sorry that we are at odds, but as a scientist I cannot tolerate people with pre-conceived notions who will not be objective (remember the first scientific principle, objectivity before you begin any hypothesis formation) and thus block and refuse to listen to others data. - - *Your knowledge of the history of science is poor -- again, if you are interested in learning more about it, I'd be happy to provide you with some reliable references. I don't know about the teachings of your "three well known universities", but you don't seem to have any specialized knowledge in this field. If you want to participate in article content, please adhere to our rules of WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. If you suspect that changes you want to add are going to be seen as controversial by others, please discuss them on the talk page first. If other editors revert your changes, discuss them on the talk page first. If you do things which are deliberately meant to provoke, you will probably get blocked from editing. --Fastfission 22:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC) - - ::And no, Copernicus was not a monk or a priest. He had connections to the church, sure, but primarily he was involved in administrative matters. To consider him a monk and a priest is a gross misunderstanding of what he did with his time. The main reason Copernicus' work was not accepted for many years was because it did not actually correspond any better with the experimental evidence than the Ptolemaic system, as any undergraduate astronomy student would know today, and it was not persecuted by the Church until the time of Galileo (and even then there were many active Copernicans, and the debate was not between the Ptolemaic system and the Copernican one, but the Tychonic system, which again was experimentally indistinguishable). You can take a look at our article on De revolutionibus orbium coelestium if you'd like more information on the subject. - ::I have taken a look at the Encyclopedia Brittanica article on the subject, and it backs up not only what I am saying, but is quite sensitive and nuanced about Copernicus's delay in publication and its acceptance (and lack their of). This is no surprise, as it was written by Robert S. Westman, who is probably the best-respected scholar of Copernicus at the moment and, not coincidentally, the source of the information I know about Copernicus. If you don't want to read the Wiki, feel free not to, but for Pete's sake read something of value if you are going to spout off about how much you claim to know, and how little you think others know. - ::For someone claiming to care so much about objectivity and being "a scientist", notice that you are the once who has resorted to both name-calling, taunting, and vandalism. If you want to be treated professionally, please comport yourself like a professional. If you want to be treated like a crank, then comport yourself like a crank. It's really up to you. I don't have strong feelings about the global warming issue, but I can spot a crank at a hundred paces. --Fastfission 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC) - - ==Unblocking== - *I don't know what all this stuff is about, but my ID is now blocked, this is a large ISP with many users that are blocked I suspect. Take this offline. - *Right mine is too, I will send an email to Wikipedia to correct this, must be a real dispute, but sounds scientific to me, not vandal behaviour, but who am I to say, I am not an editor. - - *I've unblocked it for now, since it may be a shared ISP. If it becomes a source of problems again it will be blocked again for a short amount of time. --Fastfission 22:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC) - - ==Wikipedia is not a battleground== - I suggest you take some time to review policy. —Viriditas | Talk 05:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) - - ==Pew Research Center== - I reverted your latest edits to Pew Research Center. Please take some time to learn how Wikipedia works and refrain from adding your personal, unsourced opinions to articles. —Viriditas | Talk 05:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) - :What part of "refrain from adding your personal, unsourced opinions" are you having difficulty with? —Viriditas | Talk 19:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)