User talk:Hans Adler/NSF disruption

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thanks

Hans, thanks for including the refs for the reverts and deletions. That's the way to be fair. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Format

Keeping this in chronological order helps quite a bit. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macromonkey

You may not realize that User:Macromonkey was indef banned, reappeared as socks, vandalized pages, was allowed back, and has now retired. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't he have an ANI appearance recently? Is there anything wrong with the way I am treating his edits? Hans Adler 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought you should know that. There had been bad blood between us. He had vandalized my userpage, among other things, and generally been a pain in the a##. Sock puppetry is something I really hate, and his use of socks was another thing that spelled his demise. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a vague idea that that was the case, but it doesn't seem to be very relevant. Apart from the one edit where he blanked a large part of an article – something that often happens inadvertently but could also be vandalism with plausible deniability – he seemed to be quite reasonable. Interestingly he was only involved in the very beginning. If you suspect any of the other editors who reverted you later to be a sock of Macromonkey, then I would be more than willing to look into this by comparing time zones etc. Hans Adler 01:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I thought you should know. He was is a very strong believer in the paranormal and didn't understand what was acceptable behavior or content here. I have nothing against believers editing here, and if they conform to our policies it's actually an advantage. We get better articles that way. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientific consensus"

I notice that there are several places where you mention the words "scientific consensus" when describing Ludwigs2's addition of OR tags. That connection is news to me. If he had meant that, he should have placed the tag there, rather than tag the whole sentence. This occurs several places, which makes me look bad, but I can't read minds. An edit summary is short, and the placement of the tag means a lot when trying to judge its intent. Do you see my point? I just don't want to be judged unfairly. I'm not perfect, but this is news to me.

Here are the times. They are in the Ghost section:

  • 2010-03-03 00:23 -- Ludwigs2 tags the claim about scientific consensus as having failed verification and being original research. Edit summary: "tagging revised version". The tag wasn't anywhere near those words. It was at the end of the sentence, and the edit summary didn't indicate that the tag referred to those words.
Hmm, it seems possible that you didn't understand this because you were so concentrated on things that aren't very relevant and that you thought were the main problem. I guess by now you have seen the link to WP:RS#Academic consensus? That's actually a rather well known rule, and I found it rather reckless how you kept ignoring it. But of course if you had never heard of it it makes some sense.
Except that the rule is absolutely common sense. It's not the kind of rule that somehow emerges out of very complicated situations, and then everybody decides to follow it to solve some very counter-intuitive problems. No, it's the kind of rule that most of us come up with independently because it's the only approach that makes sense. Therefore, at least in my opinion, it's one of those rules where "I didn't know about it" is not a valid defence.
But I am glad that I understand this part of the puzzle now. There is another one that you might be able to help me with. I would like to keep a good opinion of Verbal, but I find it very hard to explain this: [1]. (I can still ask him later, but it seems to fit here now, and I don't want to start yet another conversation while I am so busy.) Hans Adler 00:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have probably read that at some point in time, but in the context of the RfC it was considered a settled matter, as noted by Verbal's edit summary, but since the RfC consensus wasn't accepted by Ludwigs2 (or yourself), he disagreed with that wording. That very wording was a key part of both RfCs, and the majority !voted that the NSF does represent such a consensus POV. The United States National Academy of Sciences would also qualify. Everyone recognizes that the NSF speaks the consensus POV of scientists in the USA. The NSF report did use material from other nations, but I haven't examined its impact on whether one could say the NSF report spoke the consensus of all scientists. That might be stretching it too far. Smaller organizations would be a different matter. It would indeed be OR to claim they spoke for the consensus, but if the evidence was there, one might be able to say they agreed with the consensus. But the NSF and the USNAS are the top scientific organizations in the USA, and they obviously speak for the consensus of American scientists.
As to Verbal's edit, you'll have to ask Verbal, because I don't know the context. Just looking at it, it looks odd to me, and I don't dare try to read Verbal's mind. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't override an established guideline such as WP:RS#Academic consensus with an RfC that doesn't mention the guideline at all. The result of such an RfC must be interpreted so that it doesn't contradict the guideline.
You are talking about whether the NSF expresses consensus only of US scientists or worldwide. That's another detour into completely irrelevant territory. Please don't do that kind of thing. As far as I am aware, nobody complained about this particular point, as it is a very minor one. By discussing it you are begging the question: You are assuming that it's already settled that the NSF is speaking for the consensus of American scientists.
Here is the problem: The sentence "The NSF expresses the scientific consensus [in the US]" is ambiguous. It can mean any of the following things:
  1. When the NSF says that X is the academic consensus, that we can assume that it is right and just say that X is the academic consensus, without attribution.
  2. When the NSF puts its weight behind an explicit statement saying that X is true, e.g. by issuing a press release whose whole point it is to tell people that X is true, or through a resolution of its members, then again we can assume that it is right and just say that X is the academic consensus, without attribution.
  3. When the NSF, in any context, however casually and implicitly, casually says or assumes that X is true, then we can assume that it is right and just say that X is the academic consensus, without attribution.
Now if you start an RfC on whether the NSF expresses the scientific consensus, most people will think of 1. or 2., because these are the most reasonable interpretations of the question. 1. is the only one that also conforms to WP:RS#Academic consensus. Therefore most editors who know about that guideline will automatically assume you mean 1. Perhaps some editors will think you mean 2., either because they don't know the guideline or because they think you are asking for permission to override it in the case of 2., a case in which it makes some sense. But virtually nobody will think that you are thinking of 3.
People !voting in such an RfC will have all sorts of theories of what it is about. Most will not look at the source at all, or only very superficially. So they simply don't realise that the RfC is supposed to be about 3.
The problem with 3. is that it completely ignores how such documents are prepared. They have a purpose and a scope. The people who prepare and review them are fallible and have limited time. They have deadlines. Peer review ensures that such a document is fit for its intended purpose, and that so far as its scope is concerned it is correct. But if you assume that every single detail in such a document is correct just because it was peer reviewed, then you are making the same mistake as a biblical literalist who believes that the hare is a ruminant.
It's also crucially important not to ignore the political purpose of the report. It's an executive report for politicians. The NSF is fighting creationism, i.e. it is fighting a specific form of pseudoscience. Under Bush it was expedient not to say that too clearly. So they gave other examples of pseudoscience and explained why they are problematic and how bad it is that so many Americans believe in them. But they didn't even do any research for this. In earlier chapters much of the statistics comes from their own research; for pseudoscience they just cited a Gallup poll. That's plain lazy. And they took one of paranormal rather than pseudoscience, just to have something.
Can't you see the trick? They talk about pseudoscience and give examples like ghosts, ESP and reincarnation. In fact, all of them things that most fundamental Christians also consider evil! And then, once they have the money for fighting pseudoscience, they spend it for fighting the most dangerous form of real pseudoscience: creationism.
You may say that's all "original research". But that's a category error. It's not allowed to put "original research" into articles. But we are doing original research all the time when we judge reliability of sources etc. That's part of our editorial discretion.
Of course the creationism thing is just speculation. I am just saying it because I hope to open your mind a bit by mentioning it. I have mentioned the real, the official arguments against the source elsewhere, repeatedly. Hans Adler 01:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing this with me. The three possibilities are a new angle I haven't heard before. Also the possibility of a conflict between the two RfC consensus and the WP:RS#Academic consensus. I wish somebody had mentioned that too. What I want you to realize is that I have been acting in good faith all along, I haven't been gaming the system, or been playing loose and fast with the truth. Those charges all imply I'm dishonest, but I'm not. There are many possibilities for misunderstanding, as is abundantly clear. I want you to stop treating me like an ignorant or bad person. It doesn't help us get anywhere. AGF and let's discuss things. I'd like policy-based reasons. This (WP:RS#Academic consensus) is one. That is the type of argument I wish had been used all along. I listen very carefully when they are used, but personal opinions don't really have as much effect. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, in all three possibilities you write "without attribution". That wouldn't be right. We must give attribution, and in this case we did, with a precisely attributed quote. As for the third one, we'd be hard put to find a very "official" sounding statement because of what the NSF states in the 2006 report -- scientists don't usually comment on such things. That's why WP:FRINGE applies here. Even casual mentions (which this wasn't, since "The National Science Board Members were closely involved in all phases of the preparation of this report.") should be taken seriously, because one can't expect more from them. They don't make official statements that the Earth isn't flat, but they might mention it en passant. The same with pseudoscience. They don't make official statements about it, but they do mention it in passing, and in this case they do it every other year, which shows that their expressed "concern" is isn't an accident and is very real. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't fully understand your WP:FRINGE argument. Will look at it tomorrow. But WP:FRINGE goes both ways. The claim that belief in ghosts, e.g., is belief in pseudoscience is a fringe claim. It only appears in the SEI, and only until 2006. (Did it appear before 2000?). It contradicts the etymology of the word "pseudoscience", common sense and all non-fringe definitions of pseudoscience:
"We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."
This clearly covers the claim that ghosts are pseudoscience. The individual claims that ghosts are paranormal and that paranormal is pseudoscience are mainstream and reasonable. But sometimes what seems to follow logically just by applying the most elementary rules of logic is actually false. In this case it is because of nuances in language that are hard to cover by formal logic. Good night. Hans Adler 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using "fringe" in the sense that any idea, even an overwhelmingly popular majority idea in society, is "fringe" if it departs from the current scientific consensus. I'm also referring to how we are to deal with subjects upon which mainstream science is pretty much silent. Their silence should not be used to assert that a pseudoscientific idea is "mainstream". This means that even minor mention by mainstream sources should be taken seriously, and not deprecated because they are "rare" expressions on the subject. It seems that you have been doing that with the NSF statement.
Since I often write all night long (trying to follow along with American time), I'll let you sleep while I reply, but "good night". I notice that many of my neighbors are awake and even leaving for work now, so it's probably time for me to go to bed too. It's difficult at times because I'm often travelling in the USA where most of my family live. Fortunately my wife loves to travel too. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2 has claimed on my talk page that there are "documents" from the NSF that contradict the 2006 source, but he refuses to produce the evidence, which is a pseudoskeptical act, per Marcello Truzzi. As far as I know, the only place the word "pseudoscience" appears on their website is when it is used in these SEI reports. In the absence of any other mentions, this is all we have to base our opinions about their POV on, and per FRINGE we must take such mentions seriously. Do you know of any other places where the NSF talks about this? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that they exist. I don't know about them. In some edit summary I wrote: "It contradicts what they said earlier." This was a reference to the paragraph before the one that you are citing, not to an earlier document. Ludwigs2 may have read this and misunderstood it. I guess that now he is just not sure why he thought such earlier publications exist (probably doesn't remember my edit summary), and hopes he will remember. But that's just my guess. Hans Adler 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very logical explanation. I have searched and found nothing. That doesn't mean there is nothing, but I haven't found it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann's OR

To be fair to Dbachmann, I don't recall if he was the originator of this content and it's connection with the 2004 source, but he defended it very vigorously against the attempts of several other editors to get it right.

I tagged this content with cn and OR tags:

  • Beginning with 19th-century spiritism, various attempts have been made to draw conclusions about the existence of ghosts through scientific methods, but such efforts are generally held to be pseudoscientific.[SEI 2004 1][not in citation given][original research?]

Here's your summary of what happened:

  • 2010-03-02 22:54 – BullRangifer marks the existing sentence in the lead as having failed verification and being original research, and adds his own favourite formulation. He also adds the word "belief" to the section "Scientific skepticism".

Did anyone other than myself and Verbal ever read the 2004 source to see if I might have been right by tagging that content as OR because it wasn't in the source? I've read it several times and didn't find anything about "19th century" or about "various attempts....through scientific methods...". That's the part that wasn't found in the 2004 source, so a better source was needed. Instead of checking, Dbachmann repeatedly defended that content and source against attempts by several editors to get it right. It also seems that he got an allergy to me very quickly, reverting nearly everything I did, and in this case apparently without checking. That's very disruptive behavior from an admin. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly right that something went wrong on both sides in this case. Dbachmann is very knowledgeable in this entire area of human culture; if he writes it started in the 19th century, then I simply trust him that it is right. But since it is not in the SEI 2004 (of course not, and yes I did read it), he should have marked "19th century" with "citation needed" himself. By the way, if you had asked me when it started, I would also have said in the 19 century. Once you have read a few hundred books from the 18th and 19th century that is just common knowledge. At some point in the 19th century it begins appearing in most novels. The article would be incomplete without this information (which is why Dbachmann kept reverting it back in), but of course we need a source. Hans Adler 09:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I take that back in part: Apparently spiritism started already in the 18th century, as a religious movement. That makes the question when they started "research" quite a bit harder to answer. I still think Dbachmann is probably right, but we definitely need a source, and marking this as OR does look more appropriate to me now. Hans Adler 09:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. I always considered the Fox sisters hoax to be the start of modern spiritualism. That doesn't mean that spiritism as such is a new phenomenon. It's ancient as the hills, and the Old Testament forbids attempts to communicate with the dead. King Saul tried, even though he knew better, and the Witch of Endor fooled him. He was supposed to have eliminated sorcerers from the land, but instead he secretly visited her. He ended up losing his life. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's always hard to prove the earliest date that people did something, but according to the German Wikipedia the physician Johann Karl Friedrich Zöllner tried to explain spiritism, so I assume he would have made experiments in the style of physics experiments. Apparently spiritism was immensely popular at the time in many countries; in Germany it was less popular among the masses and more so among intellectuals (says the German Wikipedia). Hans Adler 09:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this connection see Society for Psychical Research and Parapsychology#History. Hans Adler 09:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recognized that the sentence was basically true and never questioned its veracity, but only that it wasn't in the source. Without a source it's considered OR. The other reference that was provided was good enough, but it didn't cover the "19th century" part. It's all about sourcing. I don't know when any research actually started, or when such research transitioned from reasonable scientific investigation ("let's see if we can figure out what's happening here") into pseudoscientific research ("let's find some evidence to prove this to be true"). That happens to be the whole purpose of the Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When an edit summary gives a reason for a change or revert, editors should check to see if it's true. He didn't do that. That surprised me very much, as admins should be more careful. They set an example, and in this case it wasn't a good one. It led to a small edit war with several editors over a longer time, and possibly influenced his opinion of me and my editing in a negative direction, thus essentially poisoning the well against me. It's just not fair. He may have come to realize this, but he's never apologized. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unindent|:::} I think it was irrational escalation on both sides. If you see "19th century", and you think it's true but you know it's not covered by the source, then you should tag it with "cn"/"fact", not with "or", and certainly not simply remove it. Conversely, Dbachmann should of course have done that himself, and instead of just restoring it as if it was covered by the source he should have marked it properly. I guess you were both already angry at each other and happy to escalate things further.

I don't think it's fair to expect admins to set an example. Following all the rules painstakingly can take quite a bit of self-restraint and can be stressful for some people. That doesn't mean they don't make good admins. Dbachmann is very passionate about content, and sometimes that shows. He must be more careful when acting as an admin, and I think he is aware of that and takes it into account to some extent. But in situations when he isn't acting as an admin he should still be allowed the same liberties as any other intelligent and experienced user who is doing his best for the encyclopedia. It is true that admins are looked at in this way, but I think it's not an appropriate reward for what they are doing. Hans Adler 14:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"cn"/"fact" would have been better. I've never used that one. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Hans_Adler/NSF_disruption"