Talk:Gaia philosophy

Previous discussions on this topic may be found in these archives:

Talk:Gaia theory/Archive 1
Talk:Gaia theory/Archive 2
Talk:Gaia theory/Archive 3
Talk:Gaia theory/Archive 4
Talk:Gaia theory/Archive 5

I think this should be moved to Gaia (philosophy), and all scientific claims should be moved to Gaia theory. --Eloquence 04:03 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Erik, the current content of the article is not the content of the article under discussion. A good part of it is part of the current Gaia theory (science) article and will be there anyway. It is just there now, because that was here that RK moved part of Gaia theory (biology) 2 weeks ago, and that was here I salvage the bits he had forgotten in the process. The current article is not the proper article, it is an hybrid. The article-to-be will contain quite little scientific claims, enough to introduce the topic, but will not be only about philosophy.

Besides, it took us three whole pages to agree on not using the title Gaia theory, in respect for NPOV and not to favor scientific use or the term over non-scientific use of it. Please read archive 2, 3 and 4 for the arguments. Anthère

This merely invites attack from all those who taken a course in philosophy, just as the word "theory" invited attack from a little turd who took one course in philosophy of science, and that from an old textbook. While "(mystical, social and environmental)" was insanity, "philosophy" barely acceptable, Gaia conjecture is the best name for what is actually here. The itself says why: a theory is testable, a conjecture may be tested but not to everyone's satisfaction. By this logic of course string theory must be renamed string conjecture, since it is non-testable "trash" as RK would say. EofT

EofT, are you referring to a contributor as a "little turd"? If so, this is a personal attack on a level that warrants banning. --Eloquence 00:27 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I really don't know about the history of this page, but it seems quite obvious that reasonably testable scientific claims and hypotheses belong in a separate page than philosophy (and philosophy is a much broader term than "theory", so it can safely be used). --Eloquence 00:29 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. I had stated this several times, but the entire Wiki-En list attacked me, hurled ad homenom accusations of scientism and basically accused me of censoring them whenever I mentioned this. They insist on jamming philosophy and religion into science, and they showed great anger at every attempt to separate them. RK 15:18, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

this comment of Erik was made before all the changes in naming scheme were done. Anthère 06:50, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The article implies Lovelock was inspired by Fuller. I doubt that. Does anybody know this for a fact? I suspect it would even be tough to argue that Lovelock was inspired by ideas that were in the air at that time mostly due to Fuller. My impression is that Lovelock's investigation was inspired by traditonal thermodynamic thinking. 168... 16:51, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You are obviously correct. I watched a detailed interview with Lovelock, and he stated that this theory was based solely on his ideas and observations about atmospheric dynamics and theromodynamics. Anthere's repeated claims to the contrary are baseless, and represent her personal religious, mystical and political views. But she has waged a long and bitter war against those who tried to differentiate science from non-science. Good luck. RK 15:18, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

No RK. You are incorrect. I never stated Lovelock was inspired by Fuller. I have truely no idea. Once you asked justification for that sentence, and appeared to be under the belief I authored it. I already answered to you then, that I did not. And did not specifically tried to keep that comment there. I would like that you have a better memory, that would help :-) Anthère

Please be aware that a dangerous person, EntmootsOfTrolls, appears to be back. His choice of articles to comment on, and his wording, is identical to that of EoT. EoT was banned for vandalism and death threats. RK

As others have pointed out, this is not an article on science. Even this article's major contributor, Anthere, has said this over and over again. It is off-topic to digress into detailed scientific analysis in an article on philosophy, politics, and even excursions into mysticism. It is not good form on a number of counts, one being that we had here a fractured scientific discussion that only touched on some points, yet not others. I am only saying that we should follow the same Wikipedia policy here that we follow on all of our other articles. When the topic is related to some other topic, briefly discuss it, and then link to an appropriate article. If there are some specific objections, that's fine, please state them. The text of this article is by no means fixed.RK 23:44, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)~

Just for the record, I am a minor contributor on this article Anthère

Just for the record, I first reverted the EofT edit, and then as a separate act reverted RK:s deletions.

RK: Excising the scientific underpinnings of Gaia philosophy like you did, is inherently POV, because it suggests that those underpinnings do not relate to it directly.

I have not removed the "scientific underpinnings" of Gaia theory; we still have the article on this subject, and this article still mentions the topic, discusses it, and links to it. I disagree with your position, because you miss the point; this article has never been about the details of the science behind Gaia theory. Rather, it was set up to discuss the non-science aspects, and to give a general introduction to each individual aspect of the idea. We then link to specific sub-topics as needed. That is standard Wikipedia policy. It is not censorship, and it is not a POV violation. RK 03:51, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Likewise your comment above that it is "off-topic" to discuss science in this article. That is why I reverted your changes. The discussion of science now in the article, I found to be fully germane to the subject of this article, and I see no size limitation either. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 03:00, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

See my above comments. Further, even your edit of this article contains only some of the science, but not even close to all of it. So should we accuse you of POV bias or censorship? No, of course not. The point is that this article has always been a general overview. Details (such as the extreme political views of the Gaians, or the homeostatic details of atmosphere regulation) belong in specific articles on those subjects - not here! I honestly don't see the problem. Please re-read the all the Gaia articles, and take care to note how they link together. RK 03:51, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that it contains only some of Gaia related science. The important point though is that the science it presently contains is pertinent to the other content of the article, and thus should stay.

For the record, I think Gaia philosophy is total rubbish. Nevertheless the fact remains that there is a large consensus that a healty ovelap of the Gaia philosophy and its purported scientific underpinnings is needed to have context. Almost all contributors to this article appear at least willing to entertain that modus operandi.

I assure you that you are purely pissing into the wind if your aim is to erect a chinese wall between science and speculative philosophy on wikipedia. It will not stand, and justly so. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 07:09, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I am not sure you get my point. I have not tried to erect any wall between science and philosophy. Consider: in my own edit I did include material on science, and linked to the science articles. Rather, my concern is that this article is not the place for detailed scientific analysis. Like all topics, such lenghty analysis belongs in its own article. Further, what are the criteria for inclusion? You are putting some detailed scientific discussions here, yet skipping over others. How do you make these decisions? The better course is to summarize the science, and link to the science articles. RK 15:25, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Good. But the truth is I see no scientific analysis in the article at all, detailed or otherwise. Could you point it out to me?

What I see is a valid summary of the scientific threads of thought that give some credence to the beliefs (or however we might want to characterise them) of the people whose thoughtsystems are the purview of this article. I am making no decisions, neither should you, about which of those are genuinely pertinent, unless you are an expert on the belief system in question. I think the benefit of the doubt should be extended as far as reasonable.

I don't understand what you are talking about. I haven't made any edits on this subject at all! I just am trying to get you to somehow understand that this article is not the place for the detailed scientific discussions that have been shoved in here. Once again, you have totally missed the point of what I was writing, and you are responding to a position I do not have, and edits that I have not been making. The problem isn't what I am writing or editing; the problem is that you keep attributing statements and actions to me that have nothing to do with me at all. I can't imagine why. RK 22:03, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

WHAT DETAILED SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSIONS? Which word of the preceding sentence do you not understand? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 05:53, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

Cimon, these jokes of yours are not funny. Anyone who reads this article can see the scientific discussions that you keep jamming in here, and which I have moved to the proper article. Stop your violation of standard Wikipedia protocol, and stop pretending that you are not continually re-inserting those same paragraphs. This is no joke. RK 01:32, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

In an article on judaic purity laws, I would not begrudge explanations of traditions which they are based, or possible basis in observed actual real phenomena which might underpin their reasonableness, even though I think such purity laws are a form of superstition. And I fully recognize that my knowledge of that subject matter too is woefully inadequate. So the question remains. Do you admit that you are not an expert on Gaia philosophy, and that your view of it could be colored by the fact that it is not a beliefsystem to which you adhere to? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 17:18, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand any of what you are talking about; I have not been making any edits to the sections on non-scientific "Gaia philosophy". None of the above subjects concern me in the least. What are you talking about? RK 22:03, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

If you have made no edits, why is your username prominent in the page history?

Please stop attacking me for these non-existent statements. Your behaviour is a violating of Wikipedia etiquette. I never denied editing the sections in this article on science; in fact, I repeatedly stated why I made these edits. Your claims to the contrary are fiction, and not appreciated. In fact, I actually stated that I have not been making any edits in this article to the sections on non-scientific "Gaia philosophy". This was in response to your many false claims that I was making such edits and judgements. Please get control over yourself. RK 01:32, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Since the whole of the article is supposed to be about "Gaia philosophy", it ipso facto does not contain any sections which are not about Gaia philosophy, so the distinction you seem to be making above into sections which have to do or do not have to do with the subject, are a null definition. Unless of course you do in fact consider yourself a qualified arbiter of what Gaia philosophy is or isn't. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 05:53, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

I never said any such thing, and I am sick of you repeatedly making personal attacks on me for positions I do not hold, and things I never said. RK 01:32, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Stop it RK. You are the one who is making personal attacks. I'm reverting the article to Anthere's last edit. There was a good deal of reasonable text that was deleted by your massive and unjustified revert. --mav

Mav, your behaviour is totally unacceptable. It is totally inappropriate for Cimon to lie about my beliefs, to repeatedly sarcastically attack me as claiming special knowledge, and to repeatedly attack quotes I never made and positions I do not hold. That is dishonest, it is harassment, and I am appalled to see you join in his attacks. Your sudden personal attack on me is unacceptable, and I will revert your revert wars. This is not a science article, and you have and Cimon have no right to violate standard Wikipedia protocol. RK 01:43, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Wow. I'm shocked you didn't also accuse me of antisemitism as well. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part. And where is the "attack" that I launched on you? I just mentioned that you were the one launching attacks. As as far as policies are concerned you may want to read Wikipedia:Wikiquette. --mav

Sigh. This over the top personal attack is grotesquely rude behaviour. Please stop being so hysterical. I don't know why you jumped in here attacking me. I am objecting to Cimon repeatedly atatcking things I never said, and his non-stop mocking and insulting. It is impossible to cooperate on an article when someone misrepresents about your beleifs and makes edits to rebut views that you don't even have! Could we lie about your beliefs, and then personally attack you when you object? No? Then if it is wrong for someone to do that to you, it is wrong to do that to anyone. What is so difficult to understand about this? This is simple ethic, simple logic, and standard Wikipedia etiquuete. Get over your personal hatred of me and deal with the actual situation. RK 02:00, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

RK, I don't hate you. That said there is no point in arguing with you because you view disagreements as attacks and you take it personally. But this article should summarize the scientific aspects of this subject (and the science article should do the same for this article). That is how daughter and sister articles work. --mav 02:21, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

RK, I support Mav and Cimon view that a summary of scientific views is beneficial to this article. Anthère

See, this is precisely the problem. You are refuting a position I do not have. All along I have agreed that a summary of scientific views is beneficial to this article! I have stated this over and over again, yet Cimon and you keep attacking me for saying the opposite. In fact, in my own edits to this article I made sure to include a summary of the scientific views, and links to more detailed articles. If you disagree with my views, then fine. But stop making up a position I do not have, and then attacking me for it. That's hurtful and unjust. You and Cimon and Mav can keep ganging up on me and attacking things I never said, and then try to get me banned for objecting to this. But it just saddens me. RK 02:19, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Then why did you delete that summary? --mav

I did not. Please stop lying about my edits and my beliefs. I kept most of the material in this article, including a summary of the science. Your jokes are not funny. Editing an article is not the same thing as vandalising it or removing most of it. Please respond only to things that people actually say and do, and stop letting your imagination and personal hatred of me get the best of you. RK

Where am I lying? Here is the diff of your revert: [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gaia_philosophy&diff=1669614&oldid=1669585) How is that "keeping most of the material in this article"? And you are the one who removed most of the article, so why are you implying otherwise? I also didn't call you a vandal, and yet you also allude to that. Very odd. --mav 02:32, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The edit by Rk did not remove most of the article. The claim by Cimon and Maveric is spurious. They should retract their statements. The issue is being ignored - previous discussions led to the conclusion that philosophy, religion and politics inspired by Gaia should appear in one article, and science should be in another. Rk is persecuted for following the original agreement. This is a POV violation. By pushing more science into the non-scientific area, people who read this article will incorrectly come away with the conclusion that this article was about science. Yet it really only deals with speculative and unproven theories that are not scientific. JeMa 18:09, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

I beg to differ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gaia_philosophy&diff=1669614&oldid=1669585). Nor was any of that text moved to Gaia theory (science). So yes, it was just deleted and therefore justifiably reverted. --mav 18:53, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

previous discussions conclusions were that the scientific theories should be introduced in this article as well, though not developped.

Rk is persecuted for following the original agreement.

RK is not being persecuted.

This is a POV violation.

Introducing the scientific background underlying social, philosophical and political considerations has nothing to do with a pov violation.

By pushing more science into the non-scientific area, people who read this article will incorrectly come away with the conclusion that this article was about science.

If it is not clear there is another article dealing with science and you fear people will confuse philosophical disgression with science, we may advertise the other article more boldly at the top.

Yet it really only deals with speculative and unproven theories that are not scientific. JeMa 18:09, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

this is coherent with the title of the article, so is good. Anthère

Adventures in Wikiquette

Lessons in misrepresentation

Good evening, class. Today we'll be covering the difficult subject of misrepresentation. When is a statement a misrepresentation, and when is it not? A vital topic, and you'll need to study this hard to get an "A" in your end of term wikiquette examinations!

Let's consider these scenarios:

Alice: I don't like atheists.
Bob: Alice wants atheists to burn in hell!

Here, Bob is misrepresenting Alice. Bad Bob! He is saying things about what Alice believes, when Alice doesn't believe them. Naughty Bob! However, let's now look at Charles and Danielle.

Charles: I don't like atheists.
Danielle: I don't like them either, but I don't think they should burn in hell.

Here, Danielle is not misrepresenting Charles, because she is talking about her beliefs, not his. Now, let's look at how the discussion could go on from here:

Charles: I don't like atheists.
Danielle: I don't like them either, but I don't think they should burn in hell.
Charles: You are refuting a position I do not have! Stop misrepresenting me and attacking me for positions I do not hold! Cease the personal hatred and get over your obsession!

Not good. Charles has failed to assume good faith, and now the discussion will go off on a wild tangent as Danielle defends her words, mud will be slung, and we're doomed. But what would be a better approach?

Charles: I don't like atheists.
Danielle: I don't like them either, but I don't think they should burn in hell.
Charles: I agree! Still, whether they should or not, I fear that they will.
Danielle: Well, here we disagree - I don't think they will burn in hell - I think they will be forgiven.
Charles: Hey, I agree again! You're right: they probably will be forgiven... but I do fear that maybe they won't. There's that risk there.

The key point is that if you're arguing with someone, and they say something that you agree with, seize on that agreement in a positive way, as something to build on, rather than taking it as a deliberate straw man attack. Even if someone has got the wrong end of the stick, chances are that it was accidental - text is very prone to misunderstandings. Class dismissed - time for lunch! Martin 02:48, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I give up. Only one person seems to get my point, and everyone else misses my point totally. Since none of my explanations have been understood, I give up and retract my request for any edits to this article. JeMa, thanks for understanding what I have actually written, but I will not ask for any support here. I don't have the stomach for an edit war, and I'd rather a flawed article continue to exist than to continually fight tooth and nail with people who don't even try to understand my point of view. Gaia preserve us all! :) RK 04:13, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there are 2 or 3 separate articles on "Gaia" theories. Is one of them about a "scientific" concept? --Uncle Ed 18:39, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Err...are you joking Ed ? Or are you serious ? perhaps the one with the word "science" in the title is the one about the scientific concept while the one with "philosophy" in the title is not ? Anthère 19:30, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Gaia_philosophy"

Talk:Gaia philosophy

Adventures in Wikiquette

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools