User talk:Anon84.x

==Welcome== Hello Anon84.x and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you.

I'd like to remind you about our

consensus. If an edit is not generally accepted, it will fail. Thank you. -- Ec5618 14:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

In regard of your dicussions with User:Lumiere in policy pages, please note that this user is not reflecting community consensus, and are being disruptive with a huge number of comments in the last few days, so much so that most editors are not responding to their comments. As we say it in WP: "Don't feed the trolls". Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, Anon84: are you here to work on Wikipedia, or just to criticise policy? So far as I can tell, you've made not a single contribution to the encyclopedic content-- exclusively arguing about NPOV and Original Research-- leading to the suspicion that you're merely a sockpuppet of a disgruntled editor (or a troll with a grudge). I will grant that you raise some valid points that merit discussion, but without any indication of your connection/history with Wikipedia, it's particularly difficult to take you seriously. Anonymity is a two-edged sword: it may protect your identity, if you fear it being revealed; but it also makes you less likely to be given any level of credibility.—Leflyman^Talk 08:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my arguments speak for themselves. Criticise my arguments, not me. As well, you are free to ignore me if you wish. --Anon84.x 09:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments don't exist in a vacuum; the messenger is as much a part of the message as the words he uses. If you wish to be taken seriously, you need something more substantive than complaints on project talk pages that Wikipedia isn't fair to physics cranks. If you just want to be an arm-chair critic, get a blog, post on a forum or go write for

trolling, which so far is all you appear to be engaged in.—Leflyman^Talk 10:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Presenting arguments is all an academic debate is about. What you seem to describe sounds more like politics, which I'm not interested in, sorry. --Anon84.x 11:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interrupting, but I think this subject serves as an excellent example that relates to foundational questions about NPOV itself. Meditation is a subjective experience that is inherently non-scientific, however, it is interesting to understand its "objective" effects from a scientific, empirical perspective.

What "truth" should this article present? will it be the subjective "truth" of the meditator, who is confident over the positive effects meditation has over their lives? or will it be the "truth" of the scientist, who is approaching the subject with

The answer, as reflected from the article, is that the empiricist approach is predominantly more important. My question is: but isn't that bias toward positivism? yes, of course it is. This is the sort of problems NPOV cannot handle. A TM practitioner defines the subject differently from a scientist.

But what is the "correct" approach? answer: there is no "correct" approach. A scientist will never accept subjective experience as evidence, and a practitioner will not accept scientific research that trys to falsify their subjective experience. What you seem to be doing here is trying to synthetically "balance" Pro and Con

As I told Larry Sanger, NPOV is "inherently wrong". You have been misled. Different viewpoints define the subject differently (even if only slightly, in some cases), there is no place for a real compromise. An attempt for a "forced" synthesis creates a result that may appeal to all sides, within the context of the debate, but may consequently distort the meaning of both sides. As I told Sanger, NPOV is process oriented, it seems to work because people are willing for a compromise, but they really shouldn't as the end result may incorrectly falsify both sides. --Anon84.x 15:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anon84.x! I am glad to see you here! Just want to clarify one point. The side that relies the most on well established science here are the meditators. The research on the benefit of TM consider objective facts that can be measured. On the other hand, almost all research against TM are based on questionnaries in which meditators provide their subjective experiences. It just the other way around of what you thought. --Lumière 16:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, but that doesn't really matter for my point (mentally switch it around if you want). My question is much more foundational. Why should science try to justify an experience that is inherently personal and subjective? Why is science an authority? why having a bias toward the

positivist epistemology? why does people here seem to think science is "neutral"? (this is especially relevant to an inherently subjective experience like meditation) --Anon84.x 17:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A clarification: I don't see a problem with having the article written from a scientific point of view, as long as it isn't called "neutral", because it really isn't "neutral", just reflects a common bias on what people find comfortable to accept within the context of the debate. Actually that may even sacrifice the quality and truth of the article. That's what I meant by "process oriented". --Anon84.x 18:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that focusing on objective science is a bias in itself. We only do that because, considering the amount of bullshit that can crop in when you restrict yourself to subjective experiences, we feel that it is a lesser harm. I know there is a lot of interesting subjective experiences that will be ignored in this way, but again it is a lesser harm. Actually, we can open the door to some subjectivity, but it must be correlated with some objective observations and the whole thing must be objectively verifiable. Right now, Dr. Otis "scientific" study is only based on the subjective experience of some meditators, for which he provided some personal explanations. My position is that we can include it, but only if there is a reputable publisher for it. --Lumière 18:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget meditation. Let's look at the whole wikipedia practice from a general perspective. What is the aim of this all? shouldn't an article reflect "truth"? what "truth" is achieved from showing a result that is comfortable for all sides on a debate? or a better question, is the truth always comfortable?. --Anon84.x 19:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are some very deep issues your raise Anon84x. I don't think they pertain to this article specifically, as you yourself said in your first entry for this section. Would you carry this discussion on elsewhere? Sethie 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. where do you recommend to move? --Anon84.x 19:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would love to see Sethie join us! Just to conclude here with your questions. Yes, an article should reflect truth. Yes, the compromise (which is not necessarily comfortable for either side) might not reflect truth. Instead, it can create a state of confusion. With regard to your last question, it depends if you mean a truth with a wide perspective or just a truth in some restricted perspective. This we can discuss elsewhere. -Lumière 19:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "a" truth - restricted perspective. Maybe we'll move to my talk page, or you suggest another page? --Anon84.x 19:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sethie, may we use your talk page? -Lumière 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, though your or Anon84x's would serve nicely. Sethie 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting definition I took from a dictionary:

Truth - That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

I'll focus on one of the notions I mentioned: That different "versions" of truth (viewpoints) sometimes have different definitions of the subject of the article, this might be a seen as a subtle issue, but I disagree, I think it is important not to overlook this. Consider the following:

(from meditation)

Meditation is the practice of focusing attention, often formalized into a specific routine. Meditation is usually recognized as a component of Eastern religions, originating in Vedic Hinduism, but it was also independently developed in Sufism. Meditation can also be used for personal development in a non-religious context, such as the exercises of Hatha yoga.

Now, one of the viewpoints on the articles might have defined it like this:

Meditation is when the soul is connected to higher realms of existence.

My argument is that "focusing attention" is just as abstract and "unreachable" as "when the soul is connected to higher realms of existence". Don't agree? why not? what makes "attention" more real than "soul"? --Anon84.x 20:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, let's continue, say someone adds to the article the following statement:

According to research X meditation cannot have any real effects on the individual.

Now, should the "spiritual" viewpoint come up with other scientific research that contradict the above claim? but why should it? as the spiritual viewpoint has a different view (definition) of reality that can't really be referenced by science. Therefore it really shouldn't, even if it gets the "license" to that from the NPOV policy, as doing that will distort the scientific meaning of the contradicting research (let's say it is less conclusive). Compulsively "balancing views" may sometimes remove one from a truth rather than get one closer to it..--Anon84.x 21:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anon! I don't follow you. I agree that presenting the view point "According to research X meditation cannot have any real effects on the individual." and then the opposite viewpoint can create a state of confusion. Fortunately, science is quite clear that meditation has a real effect at both the physiological (health) and the mental levels (capacity to concentrate, etc.) which are closely related anyway. Even the opponents to TM do not argue against this. Are you trying to argue for a separation between meditation and objective science? This is an issue that can be completely separated, I think, from the issue with NPOV. What I mean is that the problem with the coexistence of opposite viewpoints applies to any viewpoint, not specifically to the viewpoint that meditation has a real effect on the individuals. Lumière 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bad example, sorry (I wanted it to be theoretical). What I meant was that different viewpoints may actually define the subject differently (by different ontological, moral, epistemological etc. beliefs), thus there is no point at counterbalancing one view within the standards of another view. (e.g. spiritual and scientific views)

I also mean here that scientific theories should be chosen by their conclusiveness and strength. Not by some editor's whim to counterbalance an idea they feel is not true.

I am very pessimistic over the point of this discussion. Wikipedia is absolutely biased toward positivist views. There is no point at changing that as it reflects the view of the majority of editors and also renders wikipedia pretty useful overall. The only "complaint" I have is that they call "positivism" "neutrality", I consider that unbearable arrogance and pretentiousness.

NPOV is process oriented, it does not aim for any truth other than that of the bias that is acceptable to the majority of editors from the result of a power struggle over the text (thus also about the truth it suggests). It is truly about the tyranny of the majority. It is about enforcing normativeness of thought, just as this whole project fetishises rigid norms of behaviour. That's what I think. --Anon84.x 23:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point

That was a bad example, sorry (I wanted it to be theoretical). What I meant was that different viewpoints may actually define the subject differently (by different ontological, moral, epistemological etc. beliefs), thus there is no point at counterbalancing one view within the standards of another view. (e.g. spiritual and scientific views)

I agree. I would add that one viewpoint can consider the other viewpoints as an integral part of its definition. In fact, every large viewpoint have the tendency to do that to preserve its integrity: by explaining the other viewpoints it gains some stability toward possible infiltration. For example, scientists like to explain religious viewpoints as a psychological needs of human being. I know that it is not what you said, but it is not in contradiction with it. You said that we should not mix different approaches to a given topic. I am saying yes, but often each approach will tend to discuss the other approaches while remaining within its definition. Lumière 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the integrity of the viewpoint, within its own beliefs, should not be distorted, yes. --Anon84.x 10:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also mean here that scientific theories should be chosen by their conclusiveness and strength. Not by some editor's whim to counterbalance an idea they feel is not true.

I agree. However, of course, in the open structure of Wikipedia, we need rules that can be understood by all editors to determine the conclusiveness and strenght of a theory. The current proposal is to use verifiability. Lumière 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very pessimistic over the point of this discussion. Wikipedia is absolutely biased toward positivist views. There is no point at changing that as it reflects the view of the majority of editors and also renders wikipedia pretty useful overall.

This is also the viewpoint of Larry S. I begin to agree. -Lumière 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only "complaint" I have is that they call "positivism" "neutrality", I consider that unbearable arrogance and pretentiousness.

Changing this seems to be as difficult to accomplish as changing the policy. This facade must be a fundamental part of the Wikipedia system. Instead, I would try to improve the policy and its interpretation by the editors as much as possible, even if it is only a little. -Lumière 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is process oriented, it does not aim for any truth other than that of the bias that is acceptable to the majority of editors from the result of a power struggle over the text (thus also about the truth it suggests). It is truly about the tyranny of the majority. It is about enforcing normativeness of thought, just as this whole project fetishises rigid norms of behaviour. That's what I think. --Anon84.x 23:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you say here is consistent with observation that there is no clear understanding of the policy and that it is not really true that consensus works. Many articles are in a status where no consensus has been obtained. The article stands there just reflecting the current status of disagreement, with the viewpoint of the majority being mainly expressed, the whole article being just confusing. Lumière 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the main problem is no understanding anymore, I have myself read the policy "closely" dosens of times over a period of years, in contrary to what Sanger claims. The problem is that the policy itself is very weak, and can be and is consistently abused by wikipedia for whatever powerful pepole feel is the "right" thing to do. I agree with 24 that NPOV is a description, not a perscription, and doesn't enforce much beyond what would have resulted naturally by the wiki group mechanisms. --Anon84.x 10:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not meant that you had no understanding of the policy. I disagree as far as the weakness of the policy is concerned. The weakness, if there is one, is in the possibility to not understand it or to have many interpretations of it. However, I feel that there are some interesting rules in the NPOV policy that would not come naturally if they are not learned. -Lumière 16:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, articles should be about truth, not a power game between editors. Wikipedia gives people, and groups, unjustified power to distort truth in exchange for it recieving free labor. NPOV is retarded, because it puts the process as a target and not the end result. Anyway, I'm not playing this game anymore. --Anon84.x 18:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see this point. So, you mean that you will not discuss with other editors anymore. Did you decide to stop contributing anywhere in WP? -Lumière 18:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. I'm not contributing anyway so.. I guess not.. As for discussions, I don't know. I'm still lurking wikipedia (and the mailing lists) to see where it's developing. I also check my watchlist (I have automatic notification when there is a change).. --Anon84.x 22:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your insights interesting. They reflect a problem I am having with editing Wikipedia. If you're there & interested, you can find some musings

There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. If I am left alone on this, I have no chance. -Lumière 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]