Talk:Word of Knowledge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (rated as Mid importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Preliminary note—I am new to editing Wikipedia, so excuse me if I don't do this correctly.

Now, onto my problem. This refers to the phrase "Among scientists, most deny the existence of these type of human abilities without ever having applied the scientific method to find evidence for or against these claims." If I'm not mistaken, there has been considerable scientific research into "paranormal" and "psychic" phenomena, all resulting in the conclusion that these types of phenomena do not exist. I personally believe in them, but you can't make a blanket statement such as that just to prove your point and degrade the other person's view. Instead, perhaps you could cite some paranormal studies and what you find wrong with them. Another solution would be to rephrase the sentence into a factual statement.

For this reason, I have flagged this page for biased views. Carter 01:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree on general knowledge. But the concern seems to be with a specific section, so I'm switching from the {{npov}} flag to the {{npov-section}} flag. GRBerry 21:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also a serious error in the sentence which ends "(the 80% of the brain that is not used by humans)." This is nothing more than urban myth. It _used_ to be the case that we didn't _understand_ what huge areas of the brain did, but we do now see activity everywhere in the brain, and in many cases we understand the cause-and-effect responses within whole segments of the organ. That's not to say that we understand everything, of course -- far from it -- but the tone of the sentence (with the loaded phrase "dead zone") -- implies something that's simply not true. For an interesting summary of the myth, see http://staff.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html. Peter Reid 22:08, 4 April 2006

I've decided that clause isn't important enough to stay in the article, so deleted it. GRBerry 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)