User talk:61.68.119.205

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your accusations against User:Michaelbusch of "unfounded bias" and "personal prejudice" in this edit constitute personal attacks and will not be accepted here. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. If your attacks cease immediately there will be no further problems. Better still would be for you to return to your comment and remove the attacks. Peace, — coelacan talk — 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The statements are founded.
Dismissing the information presented without providing adequate explanation constitutes unfounded bias.
Siting personal opinion rather than facts is expressing personal prejudice.
Your accusations are groundless.
Please stop detracting from the discussion and provide meaningful feedback.
Thanks
AS 61.68.119.205 02:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not detracting from the discussion, but pointing out that personal attacks actually inhibit discussion. Your reiteration that "The statements are founded" represents yet another personal attack. You need to read our policy at WP:NPA. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. — coelacan talk — 03:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read my post above carefully. Thanks
AS 61.68.119.205 04:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't care less whether you feel justified in making personal attacks. The fact is simply that you are making personal attacks, and this is not permitted at Wikipedia, whether "justified" or "unjustified", end of story. Do you understand? — coelacan talk — 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. — coelacan talk — 04:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I provided adequate explanation, if you read the talk page. I was as objective as possible in evaluating the material you added, and feel quite justified in removing it as nonsense. I did not conduct a full analysis, because I found sufficient evidence to dismiss the article you cited (author with history of bad results and no significant sound ones, flaws in double-blind, lack of control experiment, small number statistics, uncertain evaluation criteria) I admit to one bias: removing of pseudoscience from Wikipedia. This is a good thing. I do not feel that I have compromised Wikipedia policy in any way.

You seem to have a problem playing well with others. Please exercise restraint and responsibility in your editing. I also recommend that you establish a user account, rather than shuffling between IPs. Michaelbusch 02:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: you do not seem to understand one of the fundamental rules of science: that something was published does not make it a reliable source. What makes a reliable source is standing up to peer review, scrutiny, and repeated testing. The article you cite has so many flaws in it that it is complete nonsense. Saying that because it was published it is reliable is like saying that Hwang Woo Suk's papers are reliable because they were on the cover of Science. Michaelbusch 03:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided me with any sound reasons that discredit the findings to date. Your accusations of "nonsense" and "so flawed that it is patent nonsense" as well as "bollocks" are based on your opinions that have no place in the scientific community. I appreciate viewpoints that are based on research and study, viewpoints that provide sound proof of another explanation. None of these were or are presented by you. So far you have only attempted to discredit the author, the process and the paper. These accusations are based on personal dislike, as no factual material has been provided to date. There were also no other explanations to the experimental results. Consider this: if the next triple blind experiment proves that Emoto is a hoax, will you agree with the results and the method? Now consider that the next experiment results are exactly the same as of the reported experiment i.e. Emoto is right - what would your opinion of the results and the method be now? If your opinions are any different then you have a serious bias. Let state that again – saying that something is right and something is wrong upon predisposition is a bias. Period.
Removing pseudoscience is a positive thing - it clears up confusion. However dismissing evidence that cannot be explained and calling it all bullocks is unscientific. All evidence needs to be examined, and currently conventional science has no plausible explanation for the experiment. This fact alone does not make the experiment a hoax or nonsense. Rather it needs to be pursued with an inquisitive mind. Consider the following; one day we may create a time machine, then again we might not - it may be simply impossible, at this moment we simply don't know. The fact that we don't know does not hold us from trying to understand what time is. So why should this be any different? Hey there may be 'wacky' and 'crackpot' things out there and maybe there aren't. We don't know until we study and examine all the possible scenarios. I am presenting the results of an experiment that does not fit the current scientific paradigm. There is no reason to believe (prejudice aside) that it is gibberish until we are certain of it. This is the policy of CSICOP mind you – see their website.
Furthermore, noone can deny the occurrence of the experiment nor can the results obtained be denied. Again I am merely reporting the results. Sweeping the results under the carpet will not solve this matter nor will it answer the questions posed. For this reason I do not see any justification as to why the information should be removed.
One last thing, what makes you decide which sources are reliable? Hwang Woo-Suk was a reliable source until he was exposed as a fraud. Are you claiming that Dean Radin is a fraud? If so then what is your evidence? I want evidence before I will start taking you seriously.
Simply stated - it happened, it is a proven fact, it should be reported. Simple.
So far there is no case for taking the addition off the site. Not liking something is no reason why it should not be reported. If you want to be taken seriously provide meaningful criticism, at the moment you are behaving in pseudoskeptical fashion.
Cheers
AS
P.S. Oh and regarding your ‘playing well with others’ comment. Well I have no problem playing well with others, when there is mutual respect between the parties involved.
61.68.119.205 04:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)