Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 9

message: If so, format it properly: 
""EMDR, Thought Field Therapy, and all the rest rightly deserve critique, just not on the grounds of pseudoscience." •Jim62sch• 11:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this part of the Quote?

message: I can understand the frustration people are feeling with KV. However, can I ask people to do the sane thing and just take a breather from all the accusations and talks of banning? After all, this is only a Wikipedia article and KV isn't so ridiculously out-of-line as many of the POV-pushers we see at Intelligent design or Creationism for examples. Frankly, the accusations flying around seem to be proposing major surgery for a few minor ailments: the remedy proposed looks worse than the disease. As such, it may be a good idea to solicit some outside opinions. I realize that User RfCs are sometimes looked upon disfavorably, but perhaps KV will be okay for a request for comment for the sake of trying to get some outside opinions on the situation? -ScienceApologist 13:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading through the Talk pages here and on Vitalism, from the top, and look at his contributions on the Talk pages of chiropractic. Personally, I think that before you ask for more discussion, see how extensively many different people have tried to reason with him.Gleng 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: SA, I edit just a handful of articles due to limited time.  The fact that certain editors of other articles are wasting even MORE precious editorial time than KV has wasted of editors here is small consolation.  Sure, KV's style and content are less egregious than the worst ID-POV-pushers, but they're still disruptive.  He's been repeatedly asked to change his approach, and if anything has only become more fanatical.  If you or anyone else can get him to hear you on this issue and change course, my plaudits and thanks.  If not, then I strongly suggest some sort of sanction.  (I'm not sure how all that works; I guess it would mean an RfC, but another approach might be a community ban via ANI as was done with User:Mccready.)  Jim Butler(talk) 18:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go on record as supporting the former proposed remedy and I will oppose the latter proposed remedy. --ScienceApologist 12:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: KV controversy and proposed User RfC

message: I think part of the problem here is that we mistake pseudoscientific behavior for pseudoscience itself.  Just because someone acts like an idiot, does not mean he is one.  IOW, the definition of pseudoscience only pertains to scientific method.  It is true that pseudosciences will behave in manners that make them suspect and we list them.  But you can't use the suspected behavior to label them.  We have to ask, are they using the scientific method to substantiate their claim? If they are, they are not a pseudoscience.  Then it is up to us to determine why they are behaving that way?  Are they using advertising because they are in a very competitive market?  Are they being criticised by their competition, etc. etc..  That is why we have to use, not only verifiable sources, but reliable sources.  Pseudoscience is a part of scientific philosophy that has no set criteria.  We have to consider people with MSc as the experts in this field.  Just my 2 cents. --Dematt 14:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscientific behavior