[WikiEN-l] NPOV and alleged phenomenon

Fri Dec 17 09:56:48 UTC 2004

Robert wrote:

>Ec wrote:
>  
>
>>There are probably ways in which this whole class of
>>articles can be approached more civilly.  A short opening
>>paragraph can define the subject.  There is no need to
>>say that anything is "alleged" there unless you are
>>disputing the definition itself.  A definition is not
>>a  falsifiable statements.
>>    
>>
>This is incorrect. Sometimes a definition *is* a
>falsifiable statement.  For example, someone could write
>"ESP is the method by which a human can do such-and-such." 
>The very definition presumes that ESP exists, which itself
>is controversial.  No one has ever shown that any such
>phenomenon exists.  The same is true for telepathy,
>telekinesis, pyrokinesis, and dozens of other alleged
>phenomenon.
>
Definitions are tautologies; they are always true, even the reidiculous 
ones or the ones contrary to the way that the term is defined by 
others.  Of course if I choos to define something in an unusual manner 
it will make conversation very difficult.  A definition makes no 
prsumption whatsoever about the existence of the object defined.

>One is obligated by our NPOV policy to say something like
>"ESP is alleged to be the method by which..."  because no
>one can even show that ESP (or any of these other
>phenomenon.)  
>
>We can of course say that "Believers in ESP believe that
>ESP has been proven to exist."
>
The obligation is to follow NPOV policy, not your perverted 
misinterpretation of the policy.  One could as easily say "Some 
scientists believe that ESP has not been proven to exist", or "Some 
scientists allege that ESP does not exist." 

>>One well known contributor with a reputation for a
>>confrontational style 
>>    
>>
>
>Ec, stop with the ad homenin remarks.  It is unprofessional
>to belittle my argument by attacking my reputation. It is
>also unprofessional to refuse to use my name.  No one
>mistreats you in this fashion; do not do this to others.
>
Not using the name was a matter of politeness.  I apologize for being so 
polite. 

By avoiding the use of the name I was not making an ad hominem 
statement; I was merely adding emphasis to the illogicality of the 
statement in question.  Now that you acknowledge your reputation, there 
is not much that I can say to soften the blow.

>Ec then claims:
>  
>
>>sought to confound ESP with alien abduction, by
>>suggesting that an abductee might claim that the aliens
>>would use ESP to communicate with him.  One thing to
>>remember is that it is quite normal for people to 
>>believe in one but not the other.  In that case a
>>believer in one would  find it insulting to be associated
>>with a belief in the other. 
>>    
>>
>Ex, you are making a strawhorse argument.  You are trying
>to deligitimize my basic argument by focusing on one
>example sentence that doesn't even exist in any article!
>
I was not the one to introduce the concept of alien abduction.  For my 
part I might go so far as to allege that there is no such thing as alien 
abduction.  I must nevertheless accept that the subject may be more 
important to you.  Since I do not believe in alien abduction it seemed 
clear that they were introduced as strawaliens for the sole purpose of 
making another practice (i.e. ESP) appear less credible.than it really 
is.  That being said, I guess that a "strawhorse" argument is one that 
that seeks to give the strawmen a ride away from the scene.

>In any case, many studies have proven that believers in UFO
>abductions also generally believe in ESP. This is not an
>"insult".  Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable to ackowledge
>the relationship between these beliefs, but the
>relationship is firmly established, even if you find it
>embarassing.
>  
>
Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between an insult and 
ignorance.  Now that you are introducing UFOs into the discussion it's 
hard to know where they will take you.   The ad hominem concepts of my 
discomfort or embarassment have no relevance to the existence of ESP, 
aliens or UFOs.  It is simply illogical to generalize by saying that 
because some people hold two specified beliefs, therefore all people 
holding one of those beliefs must believe in the other.

Ec