Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Mentorship: reply |
→On remedy 7 and stoking fires: tiny example of debunking. Little case study, though I could give dozens, worse |
||
Line 391:
:Uh-oh, looks like we've got a [[Empirical research|scientific thinker]] on our hands.
::"Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes]. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
==Tiny example==
You want a tiny example of debunking? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_reading&diff=prev&oldid=230759308]. Note that the revert is per [[WP:UNDUE]]. This is the general policy position of what I call debunking. Just state it as fact because it's true. But it creeps right back in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_reading&diff=261240551&oldid=260895862]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_reading&diff=161055632&oldid=161055509 This] is what the Paranormal ArbCom dealt with. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 06:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
| |||