Talk:Raymond Arritt (Short Brigade Harvester Boris)
Links
http://www.mesoscale.iastate.edu/arritt2.html
This user is an academic. This user is a geoscientist or is specializing in geoscience.
This user attends or has attended Colorado State.
This user attends or attended the University of Virginia
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Raymond_arritt&oldid=68460529
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Raymond_arritt&oldid=69715878 his user is an advanced bass guitarist.
This user lives in Iowa. (heeeeeeere we go)
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=276027
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/CommitteeView.aspx?key=BASC-U-06-06-A
Arritt in the news http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090625202010.htm
Leader of skeptic movement?
I can assure you that there is no "leader" of such a nonexistent "movement". You're reading far more into things than I have ever noticed, but you probably frequent the Skeptics project more than I do. It's been some time since I even took any serious look there. I've seen no evidence for such a thing. Tarandus 03:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Leaders don't have to have titles. SA is another leader. Tarantallegra 04:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- "Notable" is the correct word. "Leader" is misleading. Tarandus 06:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- How bout "prime mover" [1]? Tarantallegra 07:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I'm not sure about that either as there is no skeptical "movement". He's a notable skeptic there. There are many individual skeptics, but hardly a "movement". Tarandus 13:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- You haven't replied to my observation about SBHB being a "leader" of anything. He's just a notable skeptical editor, that is you have "noticed" him, but there is no organization, elected leadership, or movement, only a few editors who have skeptical sympathies and POV. If I were to consider someone a skeptical leader at Wikipedia, I wouldn't be able to point to anyone at all, but I'd be able to point to some editors whom I respect and whom I consider to have edited admirably and honorably, but I wouldn't call them "leaders", and I wouldn't name them here for fear that you would then target them even more mercilessly. The list of skeptical editors contains a few names of those types, and a few more I recognize as skeptics, and a whole lot more I don't know at all. Tarandus 02:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- A movement is just a bunch of people who do the same things, and a leader is just one who performs an organizing role (like hosting a discussion in your userspace), or is out in front in some way. Even animals have leaders, it's not like it has to be a formal thing. And like I said, it's a movement since it's about the same outside WP as in. You act like they have to have taken an oath of loyalty or gotten Citizenship papers. Tarantallegra 02:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay then, so there's a movement. (I just haven't noticed it.) Now who is the leader of the paranormal movement at Wikipedia, and who is the leader of the alternative medicine movement at Wikipedia? Those movements definitely exist there. Tarandus 05:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that there's just one leader for different sides of things. You take any longtime editor who really makes a difference and is on there every day, and you have a leader in the sense I'm talking about. But they were never as organized and there weren't as many of them. So you don't have this big group going around showing up everywhere. I deduce that Levine2112 and Martinhi would qualify, since they were put up here as revenge for my article on Cuerden. And you might be interested in keeping track of this page Special:RecentChanges. The difference is that the people you want me to name, they usually focus on just one issue. It's a lot harder when you have to know the subject and not just make the article seem negative. So they don't go around and edit on a whole lot of pages (so of course they get blocked as SPAs). When you ask about "the alternative medicine movement", you're asking about too big a field, same with paranormal, there are so many articles. With the pro people what happens is that you don't get the evidence of them showing up, and then a group following (as much). You don't have on-wiki debates about how they are going to take over, and how the other side are scum. Also, they usually get harassed so badly that they leave, so you never have a chance to develop leaders. A lot of those people are POV pushers and deserve to leave, but WP has favored one side, and left it in charge. It should have come down on both sides the same. I could make a list of people, about 20 on one side, and 10 or so on the other that need to be offed, but it's harder on the pro side because they focus harder. Not all those on the skeptic list should be offed, less than half. I wouldn't get rid of you. Tarantallegra 06:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Recent changes link should be in the left sidebar, as it is at Wikipedia. Tarandus 13:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not so, the skeptical movement it's the same phenomena inside and outside WP as is proved by quotes from them. Why else would they think they represent the mainstream? The rhetoric is the same, and they bring in sources from the outside skeptical movement. So, it is a movement, and it is in the same one inside and out of WP. Come on dude, you said you get the newsletters and such. [2] See that first result? Well, that's one of the main sources used on WP. Seriously, answer me this: are you just innocent, in that you don't know that kind of ignoramus movement you are working with (and these guys are not scientific or they'd read the literature), or are you trying to put one over on me? I'm not trying to be hostile, I just can't figure you out. I read your quotes, you know what real skepticism is, but you support these people even so. It's just I can't find the key to your attitude. SA for instance has said specifically that skeptics use any method at all to make their POV the dominant one, and god knows he never read the lit. Same with the others you're working with (whether you mean to "work with" them or not). Complete trolls who dominate WP and yet have no idea whatsoever what they are talking about in terms of knowing the data. Where are you?? (And BTW, I think QuackGuru bascially knows the lit, so that makes him a grade way above many of the others). Tarantallegra 21:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it all depends on what you mean by a "movement". Yes, there is a sort of movement, with some official alliances between certain groups, some unofficial sympathetic ties with others, and then lots of people who are skeptics but not organized in any official movement or members of any group. I guess I fit that last category. I do receive about four newsletters, and I sometimes glance at them, and might read an article, but that's about it. My sympathies are with them, so that makes me an ignoramus in your book. Whatever. We're obviously not going to agree, so that makes talking difficult. You like to insult others ("ignoramus", "trolls") for having a skeptical POV, but fail to realize you are pointing fingers while also a "member" of a fringe movement which would be termed the same by skeptics and most scientists. So basically both sides are guilty and both sides act badly. (Yes, skeptics use namecalling too.) It looks like we're even, so why not drop it? There really is no point in throwing insults if you want to carry on a conversation. Unless you are willing to AGF, there can be no meeting of the minds.
- As far as "represent[ing] the mainstream", and you'll have to admit it, scientific skeptics come from the mainstream scientific POV, (obviously not a fringe POV) and they defend mainstream scientific POV, including those of which you are skeptical. That's what lies implicit in the terms. You do admit to promoting a fringe/frontier POV, and you're welcome to do that. The problem for you is that Wikipedia's policies favor that POV. Fortunately for you, the NPOV policy requires that even fringe POV, if they are notable enough, must be presented (IOW the "facts about" them), but since the fringe POV by definition are unproven (they are on the "cutting edge", IOW the "wrong side of the knife", as the joke goes), and hoping for proof one day, and depending on anecdotal evidence now, those POV can't be presented as "facts" until they are proven beyond a doubt and accepted as mainsteam. That does happen occasionally and the sources will show it. Then the articles must be revised to document that change. That's great for you when one of your ideas becomes accepted by the mainstream. You are then vindicated! If what you're saying is true, then I certainly hope that such proof is forthcoming sooner than later, because I'm interested in learning and understanding the "truth" about this universe and its phenomena. I'm a seeker, but I do have filters to prevent me from wasting my time on wild goose chases. That's where we'll have to agree to disagree. You are likely willing to search in areas I find fruitless, but it's types like you who have made some interesting discoveries, so go for it.
Oh no it doesn't make you an ignoramus unless you're willing to go out and shout about it without reading about it first. That's what most of the skeptics do, dreadful scholarship, or really none at all. They're right a lot, but that's because they have easy time of it on most issues. The other harder ones, they shout just as loud and just as sure, but they don't know anything. Which basically makes them pseudoscientists, to the extent they're scientists at all. But as far as yourself, if you stick to like chiropractic and stuff you know, and you don't try to twist the data to suit yourself, then you're a real skeptic, a scientific skeptic.
When I say they are trolls, and ignorant, that's just facts. Tell me that XX isn't a troll? Saying he "is" is just saying that he acts like one, and we agree on that, and you said the same about QG, "gives skeptics a bad name." And I'm not a member of any fringe movement.
No, skeptics don't come from the mainstream scientific POV, they just pretend to. Anyway, if they did then that is not a scientific POV, since "mainstream scientific" doesn't mean anything at all. What matters is expert opinion. And if there are non-experts out there who are critics, and they say stuff, and a lot of scientists believe them.... well that's fine, and in a sense you're right. So, yes, you're right that it's mainstream scientific POV, but that's not how it's supposed to work, and that's certainly not how you write a good source of knowledge. You go to the experts. The people who read the data and have the degrees.
If the skeptics are defending non-expert opinion of a bunch of scientists, then they are not defending science. They don't represent science, they represent pseudoscience, pretend scientific opinion.
So, as far as Wikipedia goes, as you saw if you read the other stuff I wrote on here, I think Wikipedia is defending non-expert, non-scientific opinion. I'm the one defending science, and mainstream science. Yup, I'm defending mainstream science; because mainstream science isn't the opinion of all the scientists, it's the opinion of experts. Thus, it's a minority opinion that counts. And the opinions of non experts shouldn't count. All mainstream scientific consensus is fringe. See?
Like global warming, if you look at the numbers, you see that if you take public opinion, mainstream opinion, it's doubtful. If you take a poll of scientists, it's fairly certain, but not really very certain. If you take a poll of real experts, it's about 97% certain. Whose opinion is the scientific consensus? Well, that's not the way fringe science gets treated on Wikipedia. Tarantallegra 02:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah on this, I'm certainly for following evidence. And not all of it is anecdotal, if it were then they'd have very little. Tarantallegra 02:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
