User talk:DanaUllman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Articles you might enjoy reading

• Kolmogorov complexity. —Whig (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  Btw, the first paragraph of this introduction including the examples is perhaps the finest piece of writing I have seen here. If you understand that, you understand everything else. —Whig (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Dissipative system. —Whig (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Radial keratotomy is interesting if you want to talk about empirical surgical procedures. I don't personally think it's a very good procedure, though -- in most cases, at least (I wouldn't want to be accused of saying that something is always more risky and likely to be harmful than beneficial). —Whig (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Dana, the agreement with your unblock was that you not edit the article space until consensus had been reached on the talk page. You've not upheld this part of the deal. For that reason, your editing of the article space is now revoked for an undetermined period of time.

I'm also imposing the following restrictions:

1. Do not use edit summaries for anything other than a simple description of your edit. Considering you're limited to the talk space, this should be nothing more than "comment" or "cmt", "reply" or "response", "question", etc. No messages in edit summaries.
2. No referencing other users as "POV-pushers", "vandals", or anything similar.
3. No pushing references of questionable reliability. If there is a disagreement about the reliability of a source, it should be posted to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
4. Once all classroom assignments have been completed and I see an improvement in talk page decorum, I will consider lifting some of the restrictions.

Lara❤Love 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana, Ahem. Lara❤Love 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A request

Dana, a request was placed on my talk page that's for you. Please read this. Lara❤Love 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and the photo Dana. I haven't examined any of it yet. Perhaps when all the Wikilawyering stops (Which may be never) a stronger article will prevail. I do hope so. Thanks again : Albion moonlight (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reconstructing the biography

I've put up a temporary user sandbox page for the deleted bio at User:Durova/Sandbox/Harris Coulter and am requesting input from editors on both sides of the issue about improving this so it can be moved to article space. Do you know which field Harris Coulter earned his doctoral degree in? Your participation is very welcome. Durova^Charge! 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Water memory

Since we seem to all be talking past one another and the present article doesn't even discuss succussion and seems to be wholly about something other than homeopathy, and I can't make sense of it, perhaps you can suggest a new LEAD? —Whig (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

Because of your past editing history and main area of contributions, I'm letting you know that all articles related to homeopathy are now under article probation. Please familiarize yourself with the terms located here. I hope you'll be careful and set a good example for some of our other editors. east.718 at 09:07, February 1, 2008

Careful

I have been banned for taking that position. Anthon01 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning

This comment can be construed as uncivil. Please refrain from engaging in such rhetoric. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the comment myself and see nothing wrong with it. Astrology is not a commonly accepted medical practice. —Whig (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It was overly sarcastic though, even snide. Such comments will just escalate into an argument. So I think SA has a point. David D. (Talk) 18:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's not really uncivil. Dana is allowed to be funny (in the opinion of some) while making a point just like everyone else. I've seen comments by a lot of users involved in these articles and their talk pages, and I question the right many of them may feel they have to warn others for their comments. Lara❤Love 18:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But you'd agree they can be taken the wrong way. For the record, I'm no saint but do try to keep away from such comments. David D. (Talk) 18:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow...my apologies...I do not want to escalate drama, though I hope that people will be more careful in making statements equating homeopathy and astrology (THAT is to some people a much more seriously offensive, uncivil, and inaccurate remark). Dana Ullman ^Talk 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Who equated Homeopathy and Astrology? That really would be stupid. They are clearly different in many ways --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you also agree that homeopathy is more like psychoanalysis than astrology? —Whig (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the ArbCom has given the example of Astrology as something generally considered pseudoscience, some editors think that by associating homeopathy with astrology they will be able to have it ruled pseudoscience. However, unlike astrology, homeopathy is an accepted medical practice in countries throughout the world. Similar to Psychoanalysis, it has critics that call it pseudoscientific, but it should not be so characterized on Wikipedia. WP:PSCI —Whig (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is it? Dana has stated that it is science and then produces authoritative references that state that it fundamentally challenges the prevailing majority held view of nature and the biomolecular paradigm. That seems a pretty clear statement that it has nothing to do with science and if anyone claims it is science it surely falls into the classification of either being non-scientific or pseudoscience. Is there anything else? Acleron (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The person who equated [homeopathy] with [astrology] was [RDOivaw] here [1], and yes, it was an [uncivil] remark...and if you notice, as predicted, he has not given us a reference to his statement. Homeopathy does not break any laws of physics; it extends our understanding of it. Just like Newtonian physics is a tool for understanding the majority of common phenomena but is not as useful a tool in predicting or understanding extremely small or large systems, likewise, homeopathy is a system of medicine of the extremely small. It is erroneous to say that homeopathy "breaks" the laws of physics, though some people, including me, may have said that it breaks commonly held views of physics (because such views only encompass part of what is known about physics). Does that help? Dana Ullman ^Talk 22:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dana. I've come here as I see you're telling lies about me! This isn't very civil behaviour. I never equated homeopathy and astrology. I answered your question: many people, both medics and non medics, believe in and practice astrology. Try using google, you'll find hundreds of refs to Dr's who are also astrologers, and people who take the advice of astrologers on medical matters. At no point did I say they were the same or viewed in the same way, so I take exception to your remark about my "equating" them. Please strike out that comment. Also, why do you repeat analogies that have been shown to you to be flawed time and again? How's your study of serial dilutions coming along? Do you really think it is uncivil to answer questions?? --RDOlivaw (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RDOlivaw, Dana's description seems accurate enough. You wrote, "Dana asks: "how many "pseudosciences" have this amount of support from the medical community as well as the general public?" Astrology, for one". The clear implication being that some significant part of the medical community supports astrology. That is counterfactual, there may be some kind of astrological medicine that is practiced in some religious communities, but it is not part of any medical practice that I've ever seen or heard of. —Whig (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Try reading it again, Whig. Dana asks for a pseudoscience concept that is used by medics, not specifically for one that is used by medics for medical purposes. RDO gives the accurate answer of astrology, which as you rightly point out is used by a very small minority of real doctors to aid them in their clinical duty. A significant (although I would hope a significant minority) part of the population, including Drs, do use astrology, and other stuff such as tarot, every day. So RDO was correct, answered Dana's question accurately, and is then misrepresented by Ullman. --DrEightyEight (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it that you and RDOlivaw are both posting from nearly the same place at different times and seemingly never logged in at the same time? —Whig (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I edit in the evenings, so what? At the CEA we're not allowed to do stuff like edit wikipedia during work hours. I find your comment slightly scary and insulting --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is consistent with certain theoretical formulations of physics, such as QED, but perhaps not others. The observed reality of homeopathy is independent of our theoretical understanding. —Whig (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Homeopathy is consistent with certain theoretical formulations of physics, such as QED". Can you demonstrate that?OffTheFence (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the venue to start a debate on the applicability of QED to homeopathy. However when an editorial is used as an authority to criticise the Shang trial, and by implication support homeopathy, also goes on to say that homeopathy lies outside science it must be concluded that either homeopathy does lie outside science and is thus non-scientific or that the editorial is not authoritative. Acleron (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the observed reality is independent of our theory. How do we know ball lightning exists? We can't explain it. So what? —Whig (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WRT ball lightning, because there is a lot of disparate events lumped together into "ball lightning" it is probably not a good example to use as an analogy for homeopathy. What is lumped into ball lightning is probably a collection of phenomenon, going by the article - atmospheric, electrical as well as psychological and physiological. The article discusses a lot of different things that are called "ball lightning" which of course makes it difficult (and with the scarcity of events) to analyse and hence explain. Mind you, if this is what you have in mind with homeopathy, then I stand corrected. Shot info (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I observed ball lightning in a storm in Lancaster, Pennsylvania in 1985, and this was before it was generally admitted by scientists to be a real phenomenon. My point is that I have experiential proof of homeopathy as well, and we can talk about double-blind placebo controlled trials and electrophysical theories of mechanisms but the reality is independently either true or false. Wikipedia is not about what is true, but what is verifiable, and so we do need to stick to the sources. But it is somewhat amusing to me to see all the people denying the existence of what is readily apparent to anyone that cares to test for themselves. —Whig (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing different types of evidence. Homeopathy is not verifiably true if tested by any normal scientific method. "what is readily apparent to anyone that cares to test for themselves" is an appeal to personal anecdotal experience and this is incapable of verifying anything in a matter such as this because of the presence of so many confounding variables.OffTheFence (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused. My personal experience is not encyclopedic, but it is still my personal experience and it is still readily confirmable by anyone. —Whig (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

pseodoscience or not

Let's leave arguments about ball lightning and go back to whether homeopathy should be considered as pseudoscience or not. Dana Ullman gave a ref as an authoritative criticism of a trial that showed homeopathy as no better than placebo. In the same ref the authors stated that homeopathy was outside science. From the ref, either homeopathy is pseudoscience or it doesn't work, in which case, to anybody who pays respect to evidence based medicine, it is pseudoscience. Unless a better argument is given I support calling it pseudoscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acleron (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave reference to that Lancet article as a "junk science" and cherry-picking of studies. The good news of that article is that they found that more than TWICE as many homeopathic studies were a "high quality" than the allopathic ones. And yet, they NEVER did any statistical comparison of these high quality trials. THAT says everything! Instead, they only evaluated the LARGE high quality trials (which had no external validity to them), and they no longer were "matched" as per the original intention of the study. My question to you is: how many "pseudosciences" have several hundred basic science studies and over 100 double-blind placebo controlled trials? Please name one. Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact you think that is a valid criticism says more about you and your attitude to science and homeopathy. Also, the bit where RDO asks for you to retract your dishonest statement about him is further up the page. I hope you're well. --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Further up the page" is inadequately specific. Help me out. And yes, evaluation of "high quality" randomized, double-blind and placebo controlled trials is the important issue. The fact that you want to skew the results to only large studies in which 6 of the 8 homeopathic studies used only one medicine without any individualization shows the limitations of your knowledge and important of statistical "external validity" issues and of homeopathy in general. Heck, one of the studies tested a single homeopathic medicines for "weight loss" (and strangely enough, this large study had never even had a smaller pilot study). Dr88, do you really think that a study like that should be included in a serious meta-analysis? Can you really maintain a straight face in defending the weight loss study? Dana Ullman ^Talk 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The editors of Wikipedia must apply NPOV. That means any opinions editors may have must be backed by references. Editors are specifically warned against interpreting research. Dana, you supplied the JACM ref to support your view of the Shang paper. Please respond to the question I asked, if the the ref is to be used, do you support its statement that homeopathy is outside of science? If you want to debate the clinical trials and other papers, you are welcome to do so where they can be properly discussed, such as the JREF forums Acleron (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, no, homeopathy is not outside of science (except when one defines "science" in such narrow ways that most phenomena are outside of science). Now, please answer my previous question? Which other "pseudosciences" have hundreds of basic science studies published in peer-review journals? Please tell me. As for that editorial, you seem to have misunderstood it. Would you say that quantum physics is unscientific? Please remember that "science" is a verb; it is an evolution of knowledge. Humility is good too. Dana Ullman ^Talk 03:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To be a pendant, science is not a verb, it is a noun. Shot info (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Duh...but to be pendant back at ya, you seemed to miss my point. Dana Ullman ^Talk 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps when you articulate your point rather than trying to redefine everybody else's (ie/ science = verb) then maybe people will understand you? Shot info (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic or anything... :) —Whig (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No honest, I'm just hanging around :-) Shot info (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As for parts of speech, science is a noun, but what it describes is a method. —Whig (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Who knows, for it is said "remember that "science" is a verb". If it is scientific method (something different) then perhaps that needs to be stated. Until then, as I pointed out, it would be helpful if DU articulated his points clearer to aid in others understanding him and to stop third-parties from having explaining his edits for him. Shot info (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes people use metaphors; by saying science is a verb I understand Dana to be saying that it is an active process of gaining new knowledge about the universe. If you have difficulty understanding metaphors, that is not unusual, because many people do seem to take things very literally all the time.

To be clear, however, the scientific method is science, and anything which does not follow the scientific method is not science, however it may term itself. —Whig (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up DU. Shot info (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not DU. But I hope I helped nonetheless. —Whig (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What, your not DU, but you keep answering for him. Thanks for clearing up your particular understanding of the edit(s) though. Shot info (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthrax controversy

Having read the Alternet article on this, it seems as if you did not advise people at risk not to use Cipro, but to the contrary pointed out that overuse of antibiotics carries its own risks to both individual and public health. I'm trying to understand why this is controversial at all. —Whig (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm... Re-reading it, you seem to be characterized as saying that homeopathic anthrax would prevent anthrax infection. I'm not sure that's well founded or wise. If you'd rather not discuss further here I will drop it. If you were misapprehended I'd like to know. —Whig (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what I have to conclude is that this article does not give me a sense of what you actually said, and I think there are very careful ways of saying that antibiotics are not something people should be taking excessively, and it would be better if people took homeopathic medicines than unnecessary antibiotics. As a MPH you would have a good sense of the public health issues involved and would probably have said something much more careful and correct than I might, and it would be entirely too easy for a journalist to get wrong. —Whig (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I found this article which you wrote, and I think it explains your perspective very well. I think you explained it very carefully and when read in full it makes excellent sense. While this article is not about Cipro, it is clearly the same general issue, antibiotics may be vastly overprescribed and overused. —Whig (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Legit warning

Dana, I'm going to remind you of the restriction of your edit summary usage. Do not use it for anything more than a simple, brief explanation of your edit. Examples above. If you continue to abuse this feature, you'll be limited to one word summaries. This is not appropriate. If you want to talk to the man, send him an email. Detailing your issues with another editor on the talk page of an unrelated article is not cool. With Homeopathy-related articles on probation, it's great to see that you all have managed to find reason to war on talk pages... and by "great" I mean there are foreseeable blocks in the near future if this mess doesn't stop. Lara❤Love 15:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for mentoring me. I have only been actively editing since December, so I do need to know the ropes. My comment in the summary was primarily an acknowledgement that I thought the person was [notable]. Because another editor had questioned his notability, I thought it was appropriate for me to express my acknowledgement. Then, another editor (who I don't know) agreed with me and thought that my comments were appropriate. Is there a place where I can learn what wiki policy is about those summaries? To me, a more detailed summary is helpful to me (and probably to others) because I (and others) can find that edit more easily in the future. Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

More detailed summaries are better. But you're getting snippy in yours. They should summarize what you did in the edit. Think of it as being like the lead section of an article. It should not introduce new information. It should not speak to anyone specific. With talk page messages, it's rarely necessary to put more than reply or comment or some variation. I'll look for a policy or guide on edit summary usage. I'm not sure I've even read it, or if it even exists. But, for the time being, you're still on restricted edit summaries. Lara❤Love 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I do want to learn! However, after just reviewing all of my recent contributions [[2]], I couldn't see an example of "snippiness" or new information. Even my one reference to "half-quotes create half-truths" was a good simple summary of my contribution to the Talk page. That said, I remain humble and wish to learn what errors I may have committed. Dana Ullman ^Talk 21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've struck that comment. I took the "Let's avoid half-truths and half-quotes" the wrong way. I apologize. I looked back over your edit summaries, and you're right, you're doing well. Thank you. Lara❤Love 14:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI: response

Heads up that I (finally) responded to you on my Talk page. --Otheus (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Okay, when you link to policies and guides and such (WP:V, WP:N, and anything else in the project space), you need to include "WP:" before the shortcut. Otherwise, you end up sending people to the article for the letter of the alphabet or the disambiguation page for the acronym as used in the real world. When linking to users, you need to use "User:" before their name. Otherwise, it's just a dead link, unless they've got a famous name. Regardless, it's really not necessary to link these so much. Everyone you're discussing these things with already know them. And linking to users involved in the conversation is not necessary as their sigs provide the needed links. Lara❤Love 14:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Partial lift of restrictions

• You can edit articles not currently under probation. Lara❤Love 05:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• You're now allowed to edit the article space again, with the exception of Homeopathy. HOWEVER, you may only make significant changes (anything past typo fixes, spelling corrections, etc.) after you have reached a consensus on the talk page, as you have here. If any problems arise, however, considering the articles are under probation, I may not be able to save you from a block, so be cautious. Lara❤Love 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaint

I have filed a complaint about your behavior on Arsenicum album at the probation noticeboard Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents‎. You made changes that went far beyond the changes you discussed at the talk page, but asserted in edit summaries that you discussed it on the talk page. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Discuss

Where exactly did you discuss this? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How are things?

I've not seen your name pop up anywhere as of late. No hate mail on my talk page or in my inbox... everything running as smoothly as it seems? Lara❤Love 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for checking in. Some editors have assumed that I am no longer under mentorship with you, despite evidence to the contrary and despite my and other editors telling them that I am still under your guidance. It seems that some people will believe what they want to believe, no matter what, and some people just like to make mountains out of homeopathic molehills. Some heat is going on at: [3]...and just below this is some more dialogue. I am civil, totally, though some editors are on the edge (or over it). If you have any comment on this dialogue, I am open to hearing your thoughts, and perhaps the other editors might benefit from them too. My bottomline is that the Cazin study was published in a RS, and it was highlighted by a meta-analysis conducted by some highly respected physicians/researchers who are experts in evaluating research. I seem to be following wiki policies, though some editors are stonewalling by claiming that these experts are CAM "advocates" or are somehow unreliable. On another front, I worked with several other editors and finally (!) got some External Links to key homeopathic organizations in the article on [homeopathy]. This change was long long long overdue. DanaUllman^Talk 17:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Arsenicum album

I would like to invite you to help draft a question for the reliable sources noticeboard. I have posted my draft here and for the sake of making sure that I get the details correct, I would appreciate your review before I submit it. —Whig (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mentioned here

[4] —Whig (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)