Talk:Anthroposophy/Archive 2

message: The introduction should be a balanced presentation of the subject. A paragraph on Steiner's relationship to the Christ impulse (as he called it) that is longer than the two brief paragraphs previously present is inappropriate; there is an entire section on this later on. I have moved the introductory material down.
If there is a desire to have material on his relationship to Christ, then there should be material on other special topics as well, and the introduction becomes an essay. I know that one or two editors have a special focus on this part of his philosophy, but the article should reflect anthroposophy's distribution of activity and interests, not any particular editor's. Hgilbert 15:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is fine lower down unless it can be established that Christ played a much more major part in Steiners religion than you propose. Jefffire 16:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: In an effort to clear up the criticism section (see Jefffire's request above), I am moving the bulk of the discussion on race and racism to a linked page, Rudolf Steiner's views on races. I hope that this is satisfactory to all; the link is prominent and easy to follow. Hgilbert 09:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is altogether very much basis for accusations of rascism in Anthroposophy to warrent a ne wpage. If you give me a few days I'll try an rewrite the criticisms section so we can remove the NPOV tag. Jefffire 13:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we probably got off on the wrong foot. I hope to have a draft of the criticisms sections by friday. If it goes well I will remove the POV tag with it. Jefffire 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With my apologies, I have had less time than I invisioned. I will not be able to rewrite the criticisms section until next week. Jefffire 20:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate page on race and racism 

message: I did not delete this category, but I think it is arguably a misnomer to call anthroposophy a pseudoscience. It does not pretend to be a natural science, but rather attempts to apply systematic research principles similar to those developed for natural science in the realm of inner or spiritual experience. An argument for calling it a pseudoscience would be that this is not possible; inner or spiritual experience is wholly subjective and thus an inappropriate object of scientific methodology. An argument against calling anthroposophy a pseudoscience is that it does not pretend to be doing natural science. Just as social sciences such as economics and political science are arguably "soft", i.e. not firmly based upon an empirical and experimental basis, yet are not considered pseudoscience because they clearly identify their objectives - and are not operating under false pretences - so the same could be claimed for anthroposophy. 
The term "pseudoscience" has the perjorative connotation of a false presentation that seems unwarranted. Perhaps a less perjorative term could be found. Hgilbert 00:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthroposophy presents itself as a science however. Is anouther name for it not spiritual science? I'll do a review of this when I rewrite the criticisms section anyway. You might have a point but I disagree at the moment. Jefffire 13:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I sort of agree now. However, I do think that category:religion should return. Jefffire 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I do believe you are right. Jefffire 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However on a slightly different strain, perhaps it would be appropriate to tag certain practical outlets of anthroposophy as pseudoscience, like the medicine article. Thoughts? Jefffire 16:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: (duplicated from Talk:Rudolf Steiner page).
For me, at least, there has been some unclarity about what belongs in this article and what in Rudolf Steiner. I would like this to take some form now. 
Steiner's ideas initially formed anthroposophy, but anthroposophy has had a rich existence and development apart from Steiner's own thought and work. I'd like to begin moving what is particular to Steiner into his article, and make the anthroposophy article less one-sidedly Steiner-centric. 
This is a long-term project, probably. Any contributions or suggestions would be most welcome.Hgilbert 00:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are very few attributions in Anthroposophical writing to new thinking outside of Steiner, but there are many commentaries on his work. If you can identify new thinkers, not commentators, who have contributed to Anthroposophy and can show they are publicly acknowledged as such then please do this. There is a danger, though, this could become original research , see Wikipedia:No original research. Lumos3 06:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap with Rudolf Steiner article 

message: I have edited the opening paragraph which seeks to describe Anthroposophy using a reference from Philosophy of Freedom (1894) - which was written almost 20 years before Anthroposophy was conceived.  I have replaced it with a reference from 1923 that says practically the same thing.  Pete K 01:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'll have a look. Pete K 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, thanks.  Nobody suggested anything about marketing gimmicks.  There is currently a discussion going on at the Waldorf Critic's list about how unlike KOW, POF does NOT reflect Anthroposophy to a great degree - especially in the occult material.  It might be a good read for anyone interested.  Here's a link but the discussion starts before and continues after this entry.  Anyway, the sentence can stand as it is in the article now as it has been proofed in GA21.  Pete K 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit POF Reference 

message: I changed an external link in the Anthroposophy#Religious_nature section to a citation, since that seemed to be how it was used. I'm not sure whether the site is a valid source or not - someone with more experience in this area may was to double check - but the previous format with text hyperlinked to an external page was awkward, if the site does not qualify as a source, perhaps a note like the following 'as written up in 'link' ' would be more appropriate? Or find a new source or remove the reference altogether. --Spyforthemoon 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cesnur article external link/citation

message: Since there are questions as to the scientific legitimacy of this subject, I have categorized the article with pseudoscience. Note that this does not necessarily mean that the subject actually is objectively pseudoscience, only that some have considered it to be such. --ScienceApologist 14:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if that is general policy of handling this category, then there is something wrong with it. i am sure that to the casual reader it does not come across like that but rather that anthroposophy is classified as pseudoscience. i don't even have a problem with that assesment in general but nevertheless i found it just a cheap grafitti kind of way to popooh anthropop. i'd prefer if you could rather introduce a section that argues where anthroposophy is not in line with science and where it has antiscientific aspects. not being able to argue that through and just stick on the label pseudoscience is not good enough. if you don't have anything better to show i will remove the cat. but i would support a section as i described. but something more elegant than 'however many consider it...'trueblood 13:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the general way the category is handled, trueblood, and since there is ample evidence that people consider it a pseudoscience, I ask you to leave the tag alone. I am in favor of a new section outlining the pseudoscientific nature of anthroposophy. --ScienceApologist 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, can you elaborate a little on the it is the general way to be handled theme. where can i see that it is how you say it. because on this talk page the issue already popped up but without the result that the tag would be appropiate.trueblood 16:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 16:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  at wp:words to be avoided i found three categories that might apply to the term: 
*Are derogatory or offensive.
*Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint.
*Are condescending towards (that is, "spoonfeed") the reader.
trueblood 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A "substantial" following?  Anthroposophy has no substantial following.  Psychoanalysis has a substantial following.  Anthroposophy has 50,000 followers world-wide.  And maybe half of those consider it to actually be "science".  That's not a "substantial" following of the type the psychoanalysis example is and Anthroposophy certainly does not have the support among scientists that psychoanalysis has.  This is grasping at straws. Pete K 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Equating the acceptance of anthroposophy with that of psychoanalysis is highly inappropriate. I think if you disagree you should try to get a third opinion or file an WP:RfC. --ScienceApologist 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "This is an example of systemic bias" in the generally valiantly NPOV Wikipedia "that needs to be addressed." yes, absolutely!  The curiosity is that NPOV reaches towards an intensity of neutrality that Rudolf Steiner actually taught me even more about than I learned in Science or in Psychology - and I'm a good scientist and a trained counsellor - and studying "Philosophy of Freedom" was the key to this for me, taken in context of studying Steiner's work overall and seeing, yes, here is a genius who has not been properly recognized. I've lived 40 years (outside Steiner communities) since discovering Steiner, and have almost never found a genius to equal him.  The problem with Wikipedia (and I don't want to change its setup because usually it works) is that it would not be NPOV as normally understood to gather together similar character references to Steiner from suitable people like Canon Shepherd. Lucy Skywalker 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And conversely, the label of science is being equally sought by anybody who wants to apply it to any mumbo-jumbo they consider "scientific".  Anthroposophy is NOT science, it's philosophy mixed with a little religion and occultism.  Pete K 02:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of advocacy is highly inappropriate. The article already illustrates in its very text the problems this subject has had with reception in the scientific community. There is no reason to violate spade clauses. I'm more than willing to help develop the article, but I'm not willing to have anthroposophy-cheerleaders assert article ownership. Pseudoscience categorization is not controversial when the scientific community considers it pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i am not trying any kind of advocacy or cheerleading here but i find your editing too confrontational. to just put in the cat to me is teritoiral pissing. i thought on of the outcomes of the abitration was a recommendation to you to avoid this kind of stuff.trueblood 11:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science but is in conflict with modern science and does not hold up to basic scientific standards. so when anthroposophy is pretending to be science that is in fact pseudoscience. but it is more, it is about education, agriculture, art etc; and as pete put it it is it's philosophy mixed with a little religion and occultism. 
i have a problem with this whole category. is catholicism pseudoscience or tai chi, yoga...
can i put the cat in the article on plato or c.g. jung or how about philosophy in general? why should anthroposophy carry the labem pseudoscience but not theosophy for example?trueblood 12:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have a problem with the category, talk about it at :Category: Pseudoscience. If you think theosophy has been verifiably labeled a pseudoscience, go ahead and categorize it. --ScienceApologist 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Unlike catholicism, tai chi, yoga, plato or jung, Anthroposophy was stated by Steiner to be a "Spiritual science". A way of investigating the world of the spirit using the methods of science. This is clearly reported in the opening line of the article. Its not actually a science so its a pseudoscience. Lumos3 13:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: True.  Some things are neither science nor psuedoscience.  Some ideas are philosophy, others are just BS.  Anthroposophy does not apply scientific methodology - and scientific methodology consists of much more than "systematic application of reason".  In fact 
the "systematic application of reason" is exactly philosophy.  But Steiner's systematic application of reason left no room for peer review.  In fact, he specifically excluded himself from peer review by stating that the only people who could evaluate his were were, essentially, Anthroposophists.  This, from the outset, excluded scientists (not that any serious scientist would be interested in examining the set of ideas Steiner postulated.  You are trying to change the definition of science so that Steiner fits into it.  This is nonsense. Pete K 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that "Anthroposophy does not apply scientific methodology" but I would challenge the accuracy of your observations on which you make this claim.  It is my careful and extensive and informed observation, over 40 years, that Anthroposophy is not at odds with scientific method, which relies on a) consistently careful observation; b) drawing reasonable hypotheses from the observations; and c) being open to further evidence that might challenge the hypotheses.  Now Steiner himself asked people NOT to believe what he said but to test it for themselves. The fact that Anthroposophists sometimes choose belief over testing does not mean that this is what Steiner encouraged. He did not say, as you claim, "the only people who could evaluate his were, essentially, Anthroposophists"; what he said was that he spoke of what he had himself experienced and that if another did not experience the same thing, this was no proof in itself that what he had said was untrue.  It is a delicate matter to grasp the different scientific validities of both positive proof and negative absence of disproof.  One analogy is that I do not claim that Australia does not exist because I have not been there.  I have examined the matter, and have found it reasonable to take the evidence of others as a working hypothesis.   Which is what I have done with Steiner, and have sometimes arrived at different conclusions.  But he taught me the method - to observe what was going on "within" with the same very great care as one would apply to conventional scientific observations, and, indeed, as the whole of modern psychology has taught us to begin to do with our inner realities.  There is a growing number of scientists who see that certain factions in the scientific world claim objectivity where they, as equally respected and qualified scientists, disagree with such claims to "objectivity", see for example [] I hope this helps the discussion Lucy Skywalker 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If this is just a problem of translation, why do Anthroposophical societies continue to mistranslate the term into the English word Science , ? This looks like an attempt to draw on the authority of western science but without subscribing to its rigour, which is the precise definition of a pseudoscience. Lumos3 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is not a problem of translation, when talking about geisteswissenschaft, steiner did not mean the humanities, what the german term also stands for, but as hgilbert put it A way of investigating the world of the spirit using the methods of science. so spiritual science is an accurate translation. but i thought that is somewhat beside the point, investigating the world of spirit is outside science. i thought the pseudoscience label was more about conclusions or observations by steiner that are in contrast with science but concern wordly matters, like vitalism, biological transmutation,... the category is a detail, and i will stop to hassle about it, i found more important that those contraction of modern science are reflected in the article. "Some ideas are philosophy, others are just BS", pete you are wrong with that i think, a lot of philosophy would be considered pseudoscience if uttered today, using the standards that are used here. that is one reason why i don't like the category,, for instance lamarckism is in it. poor lamarck, lamarckism is just a superseded scientific theory. but at the time it was cutting edge science. but that is out of context here.trueblood 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then we have to get into the debate about whether ever word that Steiner uttered represents Anthroposophy.  I don't think it does and there is a debate currently at waldorfcritics.org that suggests that Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom should not be included as part of his body of work that is regarded as Anthroposophy.  Regardless of what you think of poor Lamarck's work, if it were presented today as fact would be considered psuedoscience.  Anyway, are you no longer disputing that the psuedoscience tag is accurate? Pete K 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What might surprise you is not relevant to this discussion.  If you have a copy that isn't 30 years old, maybe you should check that one and WP:AGF before disputing what another editor has posted. Pete K 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category pseudoscience