SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 125:
Line 125: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Disturbed character (view source)
Revision as of 19:00, December 21, 2013
, 19:00, December 21, 2013→Moderation: why rename the page
==Moderation==
==Moderation==
Hey everyone - a series of extremely unfortunate events lead my computer and phone to have NO access to CP - Sam I only reverted you on main page talk because that's not really the place to go for such problems. But AK Sam is right, the article as it stands now is skewed - we definitely need more examples if that section is going to stay. One is ridiculous. I'd also like a more definitive definition. I'm worried about how broadly used this classification is - is this a diagnosis? Your writing is fine - you lay it out fine, and I do see the definition, but I'm still confused as to how widespread this classification is used.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:25, 20 December 2013 (EST)
Hey everyone - a series of extremely unfortunate events lead my computer and phone to have NO access to CP - Sam I only reverted you on main page talk because that's not really the place to go for such problems. But AK Sam is right, the article as it stands now is skewed - we definitely need more examples if that section is going to stay. One is ridiculous. I'd also like a more definitive definition. I'm worried about how broadly used this classification is - is this a diagnosis? Your writing is fine - you lay it out fine, and I do see the definition, but I'm still confused as to how widespread this classification is used.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:25, 20 December 2013 (EST)
==Renaming the page==
OK; I think I understand what's going on, and why we disagree about the use of the phrase "disturbed character". The page wasn't really about that phrase; it was about Dr. Simon's books. He uses that phrase in his books. It was never his intention that his use should supplant the more common use of "disturbed". In fact, in the introduction to the first book, he mentions a (manipulative) person saying "are you saying I'm psychiatrically disturbed?" So he clearly recognizes the common use of the term.
While I haven't (yet) read the books, I've read various online reviews and commentaries, and Dr. Simon seems to be a good writer, and they seem to be good books. What you've written is, for the most part, a description of the principles in those books. Therefore, I am recommending that the page simply be renamed to "George Simon".
A few quick comments:
*I did not mean anything negative by saying that the books were "for laypeople". Those are the kinds of books that general-knowledge wikis should be discussing.
*"I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers". This was to show that the common phrase "disturbed character" applies to mass murderers. We've all seen the headlines after some mass shooting, about how the person was a "loner", and "couldn't relate to people", etc. etc. In other words, "disturbed" by societal norms. Incidentally, Timothy McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber. 168 dead. By far the worst of the people on the list. Needless to say, I retract what I said about such people. Given that we are talking about Dr. Simon's books, the wider use of "disturbed" is irrelevant. Dr. Simon was writing about manipulative "wolf in sheep's clothing" people that we encounter in our everyday interactions. I'm sure there was no chapter about how one should react to the discovery that one's husband is a mass murderer. :-)
*I also believe that the Pasteur/Clemenceau/de Buffon issue has no place in a discussion of Dr. Simon' books. I seriously doubt that Dr. Simon mentioned these people or this issue. He seemed to be writing about manipulative people one encounters in modern life. (If he ''did'' write about this controversy, please accept my apology.)
So here's what I suggest: Take the material about Pasteur and Clemenceau, and make a new page, titled something like the "The Pasteur/Clemenceau controversy". Or put it into a section of some existing page about abiogenesis or whatever. Include the reference to the Debre book. If you think their beliefs on Lamarckism are relevant to their dispute, by all means put that in. Here's the connection as I see it:
In the mid 1900's what science (well, it was called "natural philosophy" at the time) knew about biological sameness and diversity was mostly that, as far as anyone could tell, life came only from life, and each species only reproduced its own species. This left at least two important questions unanswered:
*How did it start?
*Even though reproduction only leads to the same species, how does one explain the uncanny similarities among different species? There is some deep similarity among horses, cows, pigs and dogs. Not to mention humans. How does one explain this?
Now it is extremely important, when studying these topics, always to keep in mind that scientists ''always must proceed from the information available to them at the time''. These people didn't know what we know now about DNA, and adaptation, and mutations, and Potassium radioactivity, and macro- and micro-evolution, etc. So the mysterious similarities between horses and cows were indeed mysterious, and were the subject of intense curiosity. So the rise of things like Lamarckism come as no surprise. People though about these issue with great intensity. And that included abiogenesis. Is it absolutely true that life comes only from life, or only 99.999999999% true? That makes a big difference. It's still debated today. The history of science is extremely fascinating.
Scientists were looking for any unifying theory that they could possibly find. Scientists do the same thing today about dark enrgy, dark matter, string theory, brane theory, supersymmetry, quantum gravity, etc. Someday people will look back and be amazed at how misguided 99% of that was. We just don't know which 99%.
So, yes, the issues of abiogenesis and the "tree of life" were usually thought about together. And a thoughtful discussion of how these issues played out in the debates of the 19th century would certainly be a good thing. But just saying that those who opposed Pasteur's theories about life-only-from-life were "evolutionists" is a monumentally gross oversimplification. I know you can do better.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:00, 21 December 2013 (EST)