Talk:Anthroposophy/Archive 1

message: Anthroposophy is not considered a science by any scientific authority whilst psychology is. Also it does not fit any modern model of what science is. To compare the two is to try to give anthroposophy a level of acceptance and authority it does not have and is misleading to the reader. This is an attempt to promote Anthroposophy rather than fairly report on it. Lumos3 13:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A science department at a University, a peer reviewed journal, a learned society of scientists. If you can find an example of any of these calling Anthroposophy a science I would be interested to know.Lumos3 08:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Science 

message: One of the primary links on the Stelling page has outright slander on it (reference to the O.T.O.). I am removing the link to this page.
Hgilbert 02:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The SIMPOS page contains over 100 links to articles which comment on Anthroposophy. You claim that one of these onwardly links to a page which you say contains a slander. This is a poor argument for removing the link to a sober and useful resource and feels like censorship. You cannot protect the reader from accessing sites you disapprove of.  Lumos3 11:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A secondary link, not the one in Wikipedia but an onward link leads to a page which you say contains slanderous remarks. I don’t believe this is sufficient grounds for removing the link to the intermediate page. The SIMPOS page is not itself a problem. We cannot prevent a reader exploring the www by trying to close doors. Which court cases are you referring to can you give details? Lumos3 21:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, can we stop the revert war. I agree the link following the link is of dubious nature, but that disputed article () in turn also links its own critics ( by Peter-R. Koenig) at the bottom. I think that the link can stand since Wikipedia readers are highly capable of critical thinking and can evaluate facts and slander alike themselves. Nixdorf 23:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you trying to argue that Wikipidia can only link to sites which are 100% bone fide , because there is no such thing. All sites contain errors and omissions. The Science (journal) site still has credibility and is linked to in articles, its up to the reader to treat any information with caution.  Lumos3 13:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hgilbert, there are several such links actually. For example see entries for Majestic 12 or Flat Earth Society which you mentioned yourself. Readers obviously have to evaluate all information, even that which is on Wikipedia, linked from Wikipedia, or linked 2 degrees away from Wikipedia or whatever. Please turn down your belligerent tone, it does not add to the discussion. Nixdorf 11:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I understand your concern, but can you be precise on the demarcation line between "highly critical" and "slanderous"? I would be inclined to say that sites spreading verified lies are "slanderous", and if that article about the Ordo Templi Orientis was linked directly, I could understand if it was removed. However, I think it's still a bit of a special case since they link their critics (Mr. Koenig), this means they recognize the need for debate and critical thinking. But I don't think that unlinking a portal resource can be supported by this fact, I think it's too weak. I think we need more voices than just the three of us so we can reach some broader consensus before this is resolved. Nixdorf 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outright slander 

message: I have tried to rewrite the 'critical views' section that incorporates the suggestions above (giving an overview to put the linked pages in context). Please extend this as appropriate!
Hgilbert 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical views

message: I looked at one of the links just added and it says, in part:
Findings from laboratory studies have suggested that mistletoe may enhance the activity of immune system cells so that they release more of the chemicals that damage cancer cells. 
Animal studies assessing mistletoe's ability to stop cancer cell growth have had different results depending on the extract used, the dose, how it was given, and the type of cancer studied. Results of a few animal studies have suggested that mistletoe may be useful in decreasing the side effects of conventional cancer therapy, such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and that it may counteract the effects of drugs used to suppress the immune system.
A heading 'mistletoe references showing it to be largely ineffective' is inappropriate for a reference that contains a differentiated range of results. Also, there is already a 'references section. I am merging the two and retitling the added references.
Hgilbert 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistletoe

message: There are many documented research results of anthroposophical science that have been confirmed by scientific testing. There are none that qualify as pseudosciences. In fact, there is a chair of anthroposophical medicine at the University of Bern!! Convince them to give up this chair before adding this category, please.
:Name one, including peer reviewed references. Emanuel1972 07:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthroposophy and science