User talk:Partyoffive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is a sock puppet of NotThatJamesBrown, and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/NotThatJamesBrown for evidence.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs



[edit] Please don't stereotype me

I thought that my statement here [1] was very civil and was not any veiled threat for an edit war. It was a very reasonable statement about wanting us to work together to get RS, notable, and NPOV information and references. Sometimes, the positions that we each take lead us to stereotype others. Let's each try not to do that. I am a reasonable guy. You and I may have different POVs, but we're both hyper-rational folk. I'm glad that you have access to Elia's article and its many references to studies that have been published in conventional chemistry journals (as well as in the Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences). Based on what you've said so far, it doesn't seem as though you've read any of his work. Please consider doing so, and let's discuss it, though I personally can only discuss things on user-pages for the next 6.5 days or so. DanaUllmanTalk 23:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am still confused how and why you would call my statement at [2]. How you can turn upside down my statement desiring collaboration into a desire to edit war is confusing. I'm not even going to guess at your motives, but such statements remind me of a former editor here who got blocked for a history of disruptive editing. I don't wish such for you, and I sincerely want to collaborate on providing RS and NPOV information here. Please don't turn this statement upside down. DanaUllmanTalk 05:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention of stereotyping you. I try not judge, and form my opinions by looking at editing history and contributions. In your case there is also the Dana Ullman page, which I think is about you. You have been blocked from Homeopathy pages for edit warring, and seem to have a history of engaging in these low level edit wars. With that in mind your comments, and also the edit summary you provided, seemed suspect - especially as there had been no edit warring on this issue, yet. Your effort at "collaboration" was disrupting a discussion by several editors by saying you didn't want to have to undo their edits. They were discussing edits properly on the talk page, and a consensus was being reached. There is still a consensus to remove most of this information. Regarding your claims about Elia's article in Homeopathy, I have provided a link where everyone can read Elia's "important" work, and can see the problems with it themselves. I'm sure Elia wouldn't describe it as important, or indicative of their work. To claim I haven't read it is not assuming good faith. I have read it, and I have provided the article people can judge it for themselves; something you failed to do. Scientists would see it for what it is: not a great piece of research, but as it was published in Homeopathy so I'm sure that Elia judged the audience well, and if they get better results and do better work, I'm sure they'll publish it somewhere good. I find your description of us as "hyper-rational" a bit strange. I am merely a scientist who is acutely aware of how little I know, and of how little is known. In respect of reminding you of another editor, do you mean Whig? I hope I have not been disruptive in the way that he has, with behaviour that correctly lead to his being barred for 6 months. I don't think I have acted poorly, I have provided the reference that was asked for, in its correct context and within WP policies. I think this research shouldn't be included in the water memory page, or anywhere else in wikipedia at present. I'm glad that you seem to be taking some of the time you are blocked over to try to discuss things with people. A question for you to end with: Scientists always question their knowledge and are aware of how little they know and how much there is to find out. They are prepared for refinements of their theories, and revolutions in their fields, and these improve our knowledge but also always raise more questions. Doubt and a lust for further understanding are essential in a scientist. Do you, Dana, constantly question your beliefs? >>Partyoffive (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)<<
I'm glad that you too admire doubt and a lust for further understanding. Sadly, however, your and other anti-homeopathy edits do not show this humility. Perhaps you will move and act towards this ideal. I'm pleased to know that you read Elia's article in "Homeopathy," but since you disparage this journal, I wonder if you have read and also disparage the various major conventional science and chemistry journals in which his research has been published. As for your link to a blog as a "critique" of Elia's work, does this mean that you are now changing wiki-policies and now want blogs to become RS and notable? And by the way, my reference to the word "hyper-rational" was not simply to you but to you and I. Slow down, read what is written, and please know that the vast majority of homeopaths who I know are always striving to learn more, doubting, observing, and integrating rationality and empiricism. And no, Whig was NOT my example (nice misdirection). As for being blocked, I was blocked because I insisted upon verification...which was finally given but which took a root-canal to get. DanaUllmanTalk 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to your post sentence by sentence. I'll put your words in quotes. Hopefully this will deal with your points directly and without claims of misdirection:

"I'm glad that you too admire doubt and a lust for further understanding."

I don't admire doubt, however I distrust people who lack it.

"Sadly, however, your and other anti-homeopathy edits do not show this humility."

I don't think I'm anti-homeopathy. If homeopathy could be proven to work (in the technical sense), the I'd support it fully. It would, of course, then become part of "medicine" and no longer be alternative. To characterise me in this way is lacking in good faith, and goes against your very request not to stereotype.

"Perhaps you will move and act towards this ideal."

I aim to be NPOV, which respects the scientific point of view and doesn't give undue weight. If I have acted against this please provide diffs so I can analyse them.

"I'm pleased to know that you read Elia's article in 'Homeopathy', but since you disparage this journal, I wonder if you have read and also disparage the various major conventional science and chemistry journals in which his research has been published."

I have disparaged no other journal nor Elia's other work. I have not disparaged Homeopathy; it is an accurate description.

"As for your link to a blog as a "critique" of Elia's work, does this mean that you are now changing wiki-policies and now want blogs to become RS and notable?"

To answer your question, no. And I haven't asked for this link to be included in the article, so please don't misrepresent what I have said or done like this. Blog links are fine on talk pages, so long as they aren't spamming and have something to do with the topic. This blog link has a complete copy of the article, allowed by the publishers, and also has some good comments. People were asking you to provide the reference, and you hadn't, so I did. People can now discuss this research on the talk page if they wish. Like science, wikipedia doesn't grow in the dark.

"And by the way, my reference to the word 'hyper-rational' was not simply to you but to you and I."

It is a description that fits neither one of us, nor anyone else. I did say "us" in my reply, and I said why it doesn't fit me.

"Slow down, read what is written, and please know that the vast majority of homeopaths who I know are always striving to learn more, doubting, observing, and integrating rationality and empiricism."

This is a point that would need further debate, if you are willing.

"And no, Whig was NOT my example (nice misdirection)."

There was no misdirection. If not Whig, who do you mean? Notice I asked you if you meant Whig, I didn't assert anything and asked a question. There are, however, several "misdirections" made by you on this page, such as in your final sentence:

"As for being blocked, I was blocked because I insisted upon verification...which was finally given but which took a root-canal to get."

The verification that you eventually acknowledged had already been provided, and was fairly simple. The reason you were blocked was not for asking for verification, but for "low level edit warring". This is recorded on the homeopathy probation pages. Was there anything else you wished to discuss? >>Partyoffive (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)<<

Hey PartyOfFive...we may be more alike than you may wish to believe. I'm glad that you and I have honor doubt. Having a good, probing, questioning mind is essential to real knowledge. That is why I honor the minds of many skeptics, though it is only when the skeptics' mind won't let in new evidence that they hurt themselves, others, and science. By the way, you suggest that "when" homeopathic medicine has evidence, it will no longer be "alernative." Well, in many countries in the world today, it is not alternative. Homeopathic medicines are prescribed by 30-40% of French doctors and 20-30% of German doctors. 45% of Dutch doctors considered the medicines to be effective. 42% of British doctors refer patients to homeopaths. According to a new survey, 62% of people in India, 58% of people in Brazil, 53% of people in Saudi Arabia, 49% of people in Chile, 40% of people in France, 35 of people in South Africa "trust homeopathy." You probably saw this survey that was posted at a skeptics' site...from a major business marketing firm. As for Elia's work, I'm glad that you don't disparage it or the many science and chemistry journals in which it has appeared. DanaUllmanTalk 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen the actual research for other countries, but regarding that figure of 42% of GPs in the UK referring patients to homoeopaths: this is true, but even those who do only refer a very small number of their patients. Research conducted in connection with the recent decision about funding of the Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital found that, while around half of all practices had referred patients to homoeopaths, those practices referred "less than 1%" of patients, and it was almost always at the patient's request rather than as a result of a clinical decision (do you know what the abbreviation "TEETH" stands for, BTW?). There is also a distinct trend for PCTs (the NHS funding bodies) to stop funding homoeopathy on the grounds of its lack of a good evidence base. It looks as if, in the UK at least, homoeopathy is becoming more, not less, "alternative". Brunton (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Brunton, first, I don't know what TEETH stands for (sorry). As the trends in the UK, the data that I see are mixed. While there has been a decrease in funding from select PCTs, there has been an increase in university training programs. NATURE published an article about this, noting that there are now 45 (!) "BSc" honors degrees** in CAM from 16 universities, and 6 "BSc" degree programs in homeopathy alone. As for referrals, doctors do not have to provide them, but they do and in notable numbers. DanaUllmanTalk 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC) **Please see link at bottom of page for a PDF of an article in Nature looking at homeopathic "science" degrees. 325jdc (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I doubt the provenance of these figures and their accuracy. Brunton has already pointed out a serious flaw, and the fact that Homeopathic hospitals in the UK look like being closed, and homeopathy removed from the NHS, only add to the confusion. GPs in the UK have also used homeopathy as a placebo and counselling service, but this is now declining due to increased cost and the increasing scientific based and public backlash against homeopathy in the UK. I don't know why you think that survey results count as some kind of evidence. They count of evidence that people have certain beliefs, not that homeopathy in any way works. I am open to homeopathy working, if someone provides evidence, and this isn't it. Without knowing who paid for this research, and the full questions used in the survey, this data is useless for anything but marketing blurb and tabloid headlines (on page 94). Personally, I find these universities which offer BSc's in homeopathy to be running a very fine line. Also, Dana, you seem to have avoided most of my points above. The more I interact with you, the less similar I think we are (you see, evidence is informing and changing my opinion). >>Partyoffive (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)<<

I'm not familiar with any statistics that large or small numbers of UK doctors use homeopathic medicines as "placeboes." If you have this data, please share it. This data is what it is: it shows that certain percentages of people in certain countries "trust homeopathy." This doesn't "prove" homeopathy; this article has details about "prevalence" of homeopathy, and this is information about prevalence and belief in homeopathy. It is what it is, and this market research company is not a rinky-dink company. DanaUllmanTalk 14:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should look into it Dana. I contend that this data is not what you are representing it as. These surveys show nothing, unless we can see the methodology used and the questions asked. For example, there is a famous survey of patients in a homeopathic hospital in the UK if they thought homeopathy worked for them, and over 60% (I'm sure you'll be able to give the precise figure Dana) said yes - but this is hardly shocking, as otherwise why would they be in a homeopathic hospital. What is shocking about that data is the about 10% (again, from memory) that thought it didn't work - yet they were paying to be there! For all I know, and I'm pretty sure this isn't the case, they could have sampled 20 doctors leaving an alternative therapy conference; hence we need more details. Your faith in market research companies is touching, but also sadly misplaced (where is your doubt?). I'm wondering why you trust marketeers, PR people, and alternative medicine journals above the opinion of actual doctors and scientists who's opinions are backed by evidence and fact. You seem to doubt everything that is contrary to your world-view, whereas the kind of doubt I was talking about before was a kind of self doubt - a willingness to acknowledge that you are wrong, and that you may be wrong, and to think critically about evidence both against and supporting your opinions (especially that which supports it). >Partyoffive (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)<<
That's pretty silly stuff you wrote above, PartyOfFive, really. You're trying to compare a market research survey for which there is no known affiliation with any homeopathic company or organization with a survey about which you seem to know even less. Please provide evidence one way or another. Market research companies make their living on their accuracy, and they work with large corporations who put their money based on this evidence. As for doubt, I doubt that you know much about doubt yourself, and I doubt you that know much about me (you see, I can use the D word as vaguely as you do). DanaUllmanTalk 02:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It isn't silly Dana. What is silly is constant evasion, misrepresentation and attempts to change the topic. You "doubt" statement is clearly ludicrous and doesn't deserve a response. I have given you the benefit of the doubt Dana, yet you persist in making misrepresentations about other editors, so called evidence, and the real world (such as you assertion that market research companies are credible; you do know what marketing is, I assume?) Here are the details, from the Lancet, of the study to which I referred previously:

Homoeopaths routinely respond to negative meta-analyses by cherry-picking positive studies. An observational study,[12] which amounts to little more than a customer-satisfaction survey, has been promoted[13] as if it trumps a string of randomised trials.

12 Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year, university-hospital outpatient observational study. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11: 793–98.

13 Grice E. Keep taking the arsenic. Daily Telegraph Nov 25, 2005. [www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=P8&xml=/health/2005/11/25/hhomeo25.xml](accessed Nov 8, 2007))

Here is an article from Nature about "BSc's" in Homeopathy: [3]**. And here is a bonus quote from the NHS Centre For Reviews And Dissemination (University of York):

There is currently insufficient evidence of effectiveness ... to recommend homeopathy as a treatment for any specific condition.

Can you provide a reference for your figures, and also their methodology and the questions they used? >>Partyoffive (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)<<

A forthcoming response from me will list several meta-analyses on specific diseases that have shown statistically significant differences between treatment and placebo groups. The Cochrane report on Oscillo is just one. Anyone who takes the Shang report as the end all or be-all has his or her head in the sand. More later...DanaUllmanTalk 01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

**The full text of this article "Science degrees without the science" by famous quackbuster, UCL's Professor David Colquhoun, in "Nature" is also available as a PDF here: [4] 325jdc (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Interestingly! Eh?..  :)  :P