WikiSynergy talk:Goals

By their nature....

Excellent last point. Even I, a skeptic, agree (but for two words...):

"In this enterprise we realize that by their nature, many aspects of frontier thought are either "false," or will prove of little use to humanity. Thus, in our search for what is most beneficial, useful, and true, we understand that some of our cherished ideas, will fail and be left behind. To the extent that each of us is capable, we endeavor to release our preconceptions in order that we, and the understanding of humanity, can grow. We also understand that some aspects of frontier thought will prove to be useful and real, and we therefore dedicate ourselves to the true essence of skepticism, which is open questioning and a willingness to humbly follow our experiences."

If I were to improve on that point, I'd replace the last words "our experience" with "the evidence", as exemplified in these quotes:

• "Skepticism is the first step toward truth." - Denis Diderot

• "The brightest flashes in the world of thought are incomplete until they have been proven to have their counterparts in the world of fact." - John Tyndall (1820-1893), physicist

• "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford

• "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." - Bertrand Russell

• "Test everything; hold fast what is good." - 1 Thess. 5:21

That one change makes the difference between a scientific skeptic and all others. The change will not damage or weaken the efforts of those who support this website and its POV. "Following the evidence" can only strengthen the endeavor. Otherwise very good. IMHO... Tarandus 02:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and good point. You are welcome to edit policy pages, BTW. I reserve the right to put my foot down for no apparent reason, but if you are this thoughtful, that is unlikely. The reason I did not say "evidence" is that evidence is composed of experiences, and "experiences" are what people have most of at this time in frontier fields; that is to say, frontier fields, especially with a mental component, start off as experiences before they are codified. Since it is better to follow experience, even if not codified, rather than doctrine or superstition, I used the word "experiences." However, I do not at all object to the change you suggest. Also, I'm not sure if there is a page with skeptical quotes, but there should be. Why don't you make a formal page, and link it to the skepticism project Project:Skepticism. The server problems are apparently solved, so there should be no more down time. Any other suggestions? Anything you feel is missing? P^uR^{ple scissor} 03:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the gracious answer. I appreciate it. The other contentious and offensive discussions I've been experiencing here grate on my nerves. Believe it or not (since I have gotten into many controversies at Wikipedia), I'm not really fond of controversy. I only engage (and often avoid) because I'm somewhat passionate about some issues, and because I also learn something in the process. Singing to the choir doesn't really do much good for true development, refinement and improvement of one's own POV. I'll take another look at the project page and make an edit. I hope it will be satisfactory. Tarandus 02:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have made an edit. I'll think about the skeptical quotes idea. Maybe I'll start with my own user page. Tarandus 03:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is an excellent edit. This wiki is set up for contention, which some will experience as offensive. It is meant to manage contention, so that in the end discourse will lead to greater understanding. But that will mostly be in the articles, which should be in contention between each other. I hope this will promote understanding, as well as competition between the authors. But that competition should not be personal, but through the ideas in the various articles. The contention should be of a different nature, and less offensive, than Wikipedia (while maintaining motivation). I have not had a great deal of time to develop the site, but if I can I would like to get pro and con articles on the major debates. It is a lot of work, and I certainly can't write the articles myself. Thanks to the fact that we are already covering some unusual subjects, we are already on the first page of Google results for some searches. I hope you'll choose to edit here beyond your own biography; that biography is probably not ready for protection yet, but that can be done at some point (so you won't have to give it so much attention; if expansion were to be offered, we would inform you by email). I would certainly like to see a more thorough discussion of why you are skeptical in general (it is obvious that you have seen damage from spine manipulation). You have an interesting perspective as well as coming out of an interesting family history. P^uR^{ple scissor} 09:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)