Talk:The Demon-Haunted World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I don't think the article as it is shows much NPOV. I read the book and it seemed there was more much dogma about science than actually explaining to anyone how to use the scientific method. He also makes several criticisms of particular pseudoscience which are in fact, not correct and attacks the validity of Near Death Experiences using faulty analogies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arundhati bakshi (talk • contribs)

This is All Crap.....I BELIEVE THAT THE POWER OF GOD HEALS ME WHEN I AM SICK AND IF I DON'T TAKE MEDICATION, HOW CAN IT REACT WITH MY BODY TO PRODUCE HEALING. IF U DON'T BELIEVE IN THE HEALING POWER OF GOD, DON'T CONDEMN PEOPLE THAT DO. PEACE AND LOVE--71.114.34.4 02:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)EKEMINI--71.114.34.4 02:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your point would be more understandable in proper English: no profanity, no annoying ALLCAPS, questions ending in question tags (?)... I tried to pray to some god to understand it, and it didn't work. Maybe you could pray to yours, to either improve your writing skills, or my reading ones? — isilanes (talk|contribs) 11:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The article, as it stands, prefaces much with "Sagan states", "Sagan claims", and "he believes", so I think that's perfectly NPOV, since it's factual. If there are aspects of the book that you can add to the article in an NPOV manner, please do so. --Ds13 21:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

And please sign your talk-page comments. Thanks! RobertAustin 19:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I read the book as well and while I actually agree with much of your opinion, you could easily include some of this in the article. However, you would have to be able to back it up with good reasoning and facts. Otherwise, it would lean the article heavily into a POV of someone who just didn't 'agree' with the book. Romperroom

"Dogma about science" what? It would be nice to read some examples of your claims, Arundhati bakshi. I have read the book, and I definitely disagree with you. Please enlighten me. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 13:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a quote to the article that has to do with this -starting with "Is it fair to...". I think Sagan makes a good point. However, in 'fairness' every scientific 'cure' I can think of is simply helping the body use its own ability to cure itself as well. "Faith healing" often involves installing thoughts and beliefs in someone that they didn't have before which then can produce a profound effect. When it works, this is no less of a 'miraculous' intervention than taking a pill when it works. Many medications (e.g. Prozac) have been shown to be mostly a catalyst for the placebo effect (a person feels an 'effect' of the pill, then believes 'it must be working' and then the body's chemistry responds powerfully). In other words, in any medication you can think of, it's not the medication that does the healing, it's the body's *response* to the medication. A person's chemistry responds powerfully to new beliefs as well. Romperroom 15:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"[...]in any medication you can think of, it's not the medication that does the healing, it's the body's *response* to the medication." Yes, much like an axe chopping your head off is not killing you, but your response to it is making you die, right? Some medicines do use some kind of placebo effect, or have synergetic effects with it. The body heals itself everyday (for example, your nails and hair grow, the dead skin cells you lose are replaced, if you make a small cut, it heals), and it is scientific to take advantage of it. But make no mistake: a fairly big amount of drugs and medical attention has absolutely nill to do with faith or placebo effects. They are purely mechanical/biochemical processes that heal you, want it or not. Much like the axe chopping your head off will kill you, no matter how hard you concentrate on the contrary. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 17:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Demon-Haunted World.jpg

Image:Demon-Haunted World.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)