Misplaced Pages

User talk:PhiChiPsiOmega: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:58, 2 March 2014 editPhiChiPsiOmega (talk | contribs)367 edits Futility← Previous edit Revision as of 01:40, 2 March 2014 edit undoLiz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators765,043 edits Pseudoscience sanctions: CommentNext edit →
Line 115: Line 115:
:::::::: The above paragraph paraphrased into helpful wiki capitals: ]. ] (]) 19:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC) :::::::: The above paragraph paraphrased into helpful wiki capitals: ]. ] (]) 19:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::: I do hear you. I just think you're wrong. ] (]) 19:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC) ::::::::: I do hear you. I just think you're wrong. ] (]) 19:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, ]...where if you aren't sufficiently skeptical, you're considered "fringe" and a quack. Happy editing! <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


== Talk page == == Talk page ==

Revision as of 01:40, 2 March 2014

Welcome!

Hello, PhiChiPsiOmega! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!   — Jess·
Thank you! Hopefully I will be more of a help than a hindrance or nuisance. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Δ 20:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

PhiChiPsiOmega, you are invited on a Misplaced Pages Adventure!

The Adventure
The Misplaced Pages Adventure guide

Hi PhiChiPsiOmega!! You're invited to play The Misplaced Pages Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Misplaced Pages. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Misplaced Pages in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Misplaced Pages Adventure
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Misplaced Pages Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 13:44, Wednesday, January 8, 2025 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together
Get Help
About The Misplaced Pages Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge


Pseudoscience sanctions

You should be officially aware of the sanctions available to administrators under WP:ARB/PS. Basically, if you misbehave (e.g. WP:POVPUSHING, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT) you are likely to be blocked from editing. You must recognise that the existence of conclusive evidence for parapsychology is very strongly disputed, and the mainstream position which we predominantly reflect is that is a pathological pseudoscience. You might now like this but that's the way it is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's very strongly disputed. However, in these cases, one should represent the other side fairly, and acknowledge that they have been actively responding in peer-reviewed form. It's disputed science and perhaps fringe science, but it's not pseudoscience. For example, just because many people think psychoanalysis is pseudoscience doesn't mean it is. And suppose it was only considered pathological pseudoscience (despite the evidence to the contrary, IMO), just for the moment. At least show that the people who support the "pseudoscience" are doing enough good work to get their replies published in peer reviewed journals! At least quote their replies to the allegations, even if you don't come down on their side. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It depends on exactly how you define these terms, i.e. pseudoscience or pathological science. It's nearly always one or the other. Also, peer-review is useless unless it is critical peer review. There's no point is a psi advocate getting his stuff done by another psi advocate. Anyway, the point is being confrontational, ignoring advice, will probably not get you very far. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be confrontational. The peer-review happened in Psychological Bulletin. I don't think it gets more critical than that. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
One swallow does not make a summer. Just because a few anomalous results have been published hasn't altered the scientific consensus which is presently that psi doesn't exist. Acknowledgement of this fact is necessary. We have to represent this mainstream consensus whether you like it or not. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, no. Very statistically significant results are cause for concern, especially once one considers that the effect size is independent of methodological quality. I agree that you have to represent the mainstream consensus, even when I disagree with it. Please just show that parapsychologists have replied to the criticisms enough to have their replies peer-reviewed. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, actually. If they were significant they would have changed the consensus position. There's no point in arguing about what the consensus position should be on Misplaced Pages as we reflect what the consensus is. Failure to understand this is potentially a problem. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, no. The statistics reported are extremely significant, and said things have been generating lively discussion within the peer-reviewed literature, as even a skeptical blog post realizes: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4348. The Wiki article falls on the side of several skeptics, and doesn't represent the full spectrum of opinions, nor does it give the replies parapsychologists make to the skeptical critiques. I even presented evidence showing that opinions are divided and that the line of demarcation is difficult to draw with parapsychology, if it can be drawn at all. However, as I said before, even if it's the case that it's pseudoscience, you could at least give the parapsychologists' responses to said critiques. If you can cite people like Robert Todd Carroll who aren't peer-reviewed, you can cite Dean Radin and the replies made by parapsychologists in peer-reviewed areas. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The above paragraph paraphrased into helpful wiki capitals: WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I do hear you. I just think you're wrong. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages, PhiChiPsiOmega...where if you aren't sufficiently skeptical, you're considered "fringe" and a quack. Happy editing! Liz 01:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi PCPO. You recently restored this comment at User talk:Goblin Face after Goblin Face had removed it. Per WP:BLANKING, GF is allowed to remove any other users' comment from his own talk page. You restoring the comment is inappropriate. Please go ahead and self-revert your comment on his talk page. Ishdarian 21:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, then. I won't. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Futility

PhiChiPsiOmega, you are doing a good job at upsetting the dominant/skeptical editors but my crystal ball tells me that the end will be simply the addition of your name to my list of recent martyrs. It would be good if there was a way to redirect your attention to more fruitful endeavors. If you are interested, please send me a message with the Contact tool on my website. Tom Butler (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If they want to confront me, they can. They're just embarrassing themselves and messing up Misplaced Pages, and the evidence is just going to pile up in support of the fact that they should stop. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)