Jump to content

User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Development of list

The goal of the list, from the first item, is to emphasize that Wikipedia in general is scientifically-biased. But science is based on many observations, while bias treats the smallest of observations as if it were all that is worth observing, which is simply not true. This is why every individual, even the best scientist, has inherent bias, and why the collective sum of human knowledge is also biased, albeit far less so than individuals. The more science, or knowledge there is, the less bias there is, because there are more observations. To use the phrase "We are biased toward science..." while at the same time glossing over all the details, is a contradiction of terms.

The list goes from the general dictionary terms of "science" and "pseudoscience", to much more specific encyclopedic ones without first examining the defining minutia of those different terms. Multi-faceted concepts are dumped into two opposite categories without defining what aspect of them or what claims are being contrasted. For example, how exactly is Wikipedia biased for crops and against crop circles? Both exist in the physical world and as concepts, both have causes. So, what is it that can be said about them that is true or false? The same type of questions should be asked of every specific item in the list.

As it is, this "essay" sheds no light. It is a blunt instrument only fit for shutting down essential talk page discussions on highly controversial topics, a couple of which are lumped in along with the less controversial ones in the list.

Right now the list looks to me like someone threw a bunch of random junk into a couple of piles and is trying to convince me that everything is all sorted, when there has been no analysis of all the different parts. Sotuman (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE:
I have placed the data in a table to allow for better evaluation. It does make a break with the poetic format of repeated "We are biased toward 'x' and against 'y'", for the purpose of allowing whatever the absurd claim of the pseudoscience is to be openly ridiculed, which will be far more effective and constructive to the Wikipedia in the long run. The first three items are done, if anyone wants to summarize the others that will be wonderful. Sotuman (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ixocactus: This is the place to explain rationale, not the edit summary. Sotuman (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nowak Kowalski: It's a piece of sassy poetry, not an essay. Sotuman (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sotuman: As you detected, this is a poetry that "threw a bunch o junk" in context to explain readers how we treat some things as flood geology and others denialisms. Wall of text is not necessary here. Ixocactus (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
As you detected, I am at the moment under an arbitrary topic ban, thanks Bish, the reasons for which are unrelated to the difference of formats under examination here. A table does destroy the poetic form of the list, but also increases context so that we can explain to readers precisely why some things are treated as pseudoscience, and others not. A poetic listing of an odd assortment of items does nothing to show the reasons why some claims are false and others scientific. For something called an essay, there needs to be more analysis and reasoning, maybe a syllogism or paragraph, that would be nice. Sotuman (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps before pontificating on "The goal of the list", you might want to ask the person who wrote it. That would be me. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It is possible that I have misunderstood your standard licensing notice. My understanding is that now, the words must speak for themselves and stand on their own. I am merely trying to make the list better, but of course we need the author's input. Sotuman (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Under CC0 you are certainly free to pretend that you can read my mind and say what my goal was when I wrote it. That would be commentary, which is also allowed under the various more restrictive licenses. Nowhere does CC0 say that nobody is allowed to mock you for your commentary, especially when you claim that you can read my mind and tell me what my goal was when I wrote it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

If the goal of the list truly isn't, as I say, "...to emphasize that Wikipedia in general is scientifically-biased," perhaps you could be so kind as to clarify what the goal really is, and update the list accordingly. If you feel as though I have misunderstood something you wrote, please tell me, precisely because I can only read your mind to the extent that you write it down. I'm sharing honest observations of what I see, and hope you are doing the same. Then, if the other items I pointed out are addressed dispassionately, the list would be more logical and comprehensive. Currently classed as an essay, it's really a poem. It lacks analysis of what claims are made for each listed topic and why the claims are true or false.

It is great of you as the original author to stop in, however if the goal is for the "essay" to be thoroughly vetted by the community, this cannot take place without substantial new input from others besides yourself, the same way that input from Jimmy Wales as founder of this whole enterprise, is not welcome in many administrative areas, for the same reason that once an idea is cast into the public domain, it takes on a life of its own, because it is something for all minds to grasp and grapple with, not only one mind.

Everyone has their own biased POV by virtue of being in a very weak and limited physical body, but continued collaboration amongst many such narrow-minded people about seemingly controversial topics will result in a relatively unbiased and educated culture with a lot of robust scientific ideas. And this discussion is absolutely essential, it is never a waste of time and should never be shut down as long as life's goal to understand reality perfectly has not been attained. Of course, decisions must be made, and they are usually based on limited and conflicting information. But if prior discussion and collaboration has taken place, it is likely to be a good decision, while bad decisions are regularly made by those who do not consult others outside their point of view. When we're all dead in fifty years, we won't be discussing anything, we won't be making any more decisions. But hopefully, we will have left something behind that will help everyone else who wants to learn a true principle or fact about life. This list could easily become such a help. Sotuman (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Most people like the list just the way is it and oppose reformatting or refactoring it. Your attempt to apply a poetry template[1] appears to be an attempt to water down a message that a bunch of people strongly agree with. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Good teachers explain things to their students patiently, firmly yes, but the teacher and student are in fact partners in learning.
When someone believes in BS, they likely do not see it that way. So, what is it exactly that they are claiming is true or real or factual? How can we say for certain that it is BS? It's not as easy as showing the mathematical proof for 2+2=4, or that purple is 400 nm wavelength of light, but it shouldn't be that difficult either to present whatever the absurd claim is, next to a one-sentence summary of the field of study whose observations reveal the absurdity.
If it's going to be like some magic show where you don't know how the trick is done, you don't get to call BS on it unless you correctly guess how it's done. The proof of the pudding remains floating out there if all you ever do is scold people that their beliefs are BS without making the smallest of efforts to show exactly why that is.
I agree that some people who you refer to as the fringe theorist are plain foolish and prideful and won't listen to reason, but that doesn't mean that our own methods should become deficient in reason or analysis. If it's as easy as cut and paste, then do the extra work now to make it more comprehensive and logical and it will work more like a sword, and less like a slap.
I'll just clarify that my goal is to transform the list into something better and stronger. If this isn't something the community wants then the list should at least be categorized accurately. Right now it is a poem. A poem should not be "...immortaliz[ed] ... as an essay" no matter how wonderful it is, because poems and essays are two entirely different types of literature. Sotuman (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Essays for clarification as to what an essay on Wikipedia actually is. Theroadislong (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Please read essay and poetry for a more fundamental clarification as to the differences between the two. An essay tries to say something using sentences, data, and examples. Repeating one line a bunch of times with no further explanation is poetic. The list isn't an essay, it's a poem. Sotuman (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
We are not concerned with those meanings here though. The page is a Wikipedia essay which has a particular meaning and purpose Theroadislong (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that I know when I am writing an essay and when I am writing poetry.
I am considering trying to create as essay written in Iambic pentameter because reasons. :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone have any good additions to suggest?

I am hoping that we can find more good entries. I really like the recent geology/flood geology entry. What I am looking for:

  • Similarity. Laundry soap / laundry balls is good. Psychology / phrenology share the -ology ending and have the same number of syllables. This is not an absolute requirement, though; I did include Mendelian inheritance / Lysenkoism. I couldn['t think of similar phrases, but I really wanted those who are unfamiliar with Mendel and Lysenko to click on those links.
  • Common and or well-known misconceptions. I would like to cover the main areas where people believe stuff that isn't true, simply because we are likely to get a lot of True Believers trying to "fix" Wikipedia in those areas.

Any ideas? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Guy Macon:! I think that magnet therapy is better then microlepton fields against electromagnetic fields. I do it in portuguese version after ad flood geology. The final list can be hierarchized too. Thanks for inspiration! Ixocactus (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Great suggestion! I just added
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
and I changed
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.
to
We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.
Magnetic therapy is just the sort of thing I want in this essay. Look at these products on Amazon:
That last one is extra special. It offers you magnetic therapy without containing any actual magnets. Homeopathic magnetic therapy!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy_Macon/Yes._We_are_biased./Archive_1&oldid=1038659338"