Talk:New Age/Archive 5

message: I think the section on new age music deserves it's own article.  It's not necessarily connected with the religious idea of "new age".--ArcticFrog 16:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Andries: I respect your interpretation, and that the term may be useless for you personally, but surely, if it was useless in a general sense, it wouldn't exist.  Vagueness doesn't preclude usefulness.  I agree with you in so far as there doesn't seem to be any such term as "Old Age" to contrast New Age with.  But what is the inference, anyway?  I like the broad interpretation presented in the article, and wouldn't want to see it changed, even in the light of the points you are making.  Soundray 21:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What could be added is a statement like 'Some people doubt the added value of the classification of beliefs and movements to New age because, they say, that the beliefs and movements that New Age is supposed to comprise are too diverse which, they argue, makes the term New Age too vague to be useful.' By the way, I don't think that something is true or useful only because many people use it. I think that one should look at the evidence, instead. Andries 18:32, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your addition sounds okay to me, apart from the bit about usefulness. That something is being used doesn't make it useful, but it proves that it is useful to those who use it -- especially if that something is a term.  The term "New Age" is being used a lot -- there's your evidence. Soundray 18:59, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Soundray:Thanks for ur comment. But the reason why one makes a classification in the first place is because some things have something in common. If these things have (hardly) anything in common then the classification is useless. Another reaon why one would classify certain things is to help to understand these things. I don't think that the term New Age helps to understand things. Hence I think that the term is useless. If I said it derogatory again then I would say that the 'use' of the term New Age is only to camouflage ignorance and intellectual laziness. I don't blame people, because u can't know all. Andries 19:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you're not making sense. Even if the classification was useless, how would that make the term useless? And, once more, what is your inference? Also, you are imputing ignorance and laziness, but of course you aren't blaming anyone. Do I sense a slight contradiction here? Soundray 18:06, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text:  Soundray: The term New ages is used to classify beliefs and movements so you can't seperate the term from the classification. My inference is that it is better to refer directly to beliefs and movements at stake. Call Tarot Tarot, astrology astrology and theosophy theosophy etc. That is better than calling them New Age.  But I do understand that this may be difficult for many people unless they have accurate information. Andries 18:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Andries: In my opinion, you have to separate the term from the classification. Example: some people erroneously classify whales and dolphins as fish. The classification may be wrong, but the term fish is still useful. Soundray 11:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, anyway, finally I added my objection to the term New Age in the article, in a very moderate tone, I think. I hope others can agree with it. If I am really the only one who has this objection, yes, then I have to admit that it has to be removed. Andries 20:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some people, including neo-pagans, labeled New Age might find the term inappropriate since it appears to link them with beliefs and practices they do not espouse."
New Age may not be in your vocabulary. At least read the article before you criticize its usefulness.
BF 02:59, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: BF, Sorry, you are right, I only glanced at it but it was frustration built up over many years. I never meant to say that the article  is useless. After all the term is used widely.  Andries 18:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Hi BF, the colors look nice, but (and don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing your design skills) unfortunately Wikipedia articles need to have a consistent look and feel Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Don't get fancy, and centering text is getting pretty fancy, and it should be restored to the standard format.  Thanks.   --Lexor|Talk 04:10, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I guess I was too slow, looks like you already reverted before I posted! ;-) --Lexor|Talk 04:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

message: I added Byron Bay as a New Age community, but have done so strictly on the basis of hearsay and a vague example or two. It would probably be best for some Aussie in the know to confirm this. --Gary D 19:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gary, supina an Aussie! BF 21:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I can't find him/her as a WP user, though; how do I get in touch with him/her? --Gary D 23:54, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byron Bay 

message: Hi, I'm new here.  I am very interested in this article -- unsurprisingly, a controversial one -- and hope to make a number of contributions to it.  But to get started I would like to object to a particular sentence:
:It is worth noting that this view [of the existence of nonphysical "forces"] is incompatible with contemporary science: the forces posited by physics are supposed to exhaustively describe the behaviour of the universe, so anything acting according to another force would have to break the laws of physics.
This isn't true on any count.  The post-Newtonian/Cartesian idea of the clockwork universe (an idea to which I doubt either Newton or Descartes would have subscribed) has in any case been thoroughly obsoleted by quantum mechanics.  Indeed, on Wikipedia's own page on the uncertainty principle we read:
:For example, the pattern (probability distribution) produced by millions of photons passing through a diffraction slit can be calculated using quantum mechanics, but the exact path of each photon cannot be predicted by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation holds that it cannot be predicted by any method.
I suppose you could say that the view in question is incompatible with 19th-century science, but it's certainly not incompatible with contemporary science, which has proven, not the completeness of physics, but its incompleteness.
I move that the sentence in question should simply be struck.
Slburson 18:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compatible with science?