User talk:Jscboulder

Colorpuncture

I reverted your edit and regret that you disagreed with it. You could have sent me a message or placed a note on the article's talk page. I am a scientist and a long time contributer to WP. I do not follow anybody elses's "editorial policy" (WP doesn't have one). I have encountered the work of Oschman before. As far as I can tell, he makes a living selling books (books are not peer-reviewed scientific sources) about various alternative medicine practices that have not been proved effective (or have been proved ineffective). He makes only fleeting reference to colorpuncture in his book, so I see no reason to say that he "lists it" as anything. Your edit was extremely vague and contained several terms ("dynamic systems", "body/mind", "wholeness") that I consider alternative medicine 'red flags'. Famousdog (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To list Quackwatch as a proof of Colorpuncture's lack of efficacy while throwing Oschman's research out is a clear preference for opinion over analysis. Wikipedia has lost a user. Quackwatch is a clear example of the watchdog needing a watchdog. But that again is an example of the difference in the US and Europe on human services and health care specifically. Please don't object unless you've lived in Europe as long as I have with first hand experience. In most countries there the insurance companies are happy to not only pay for acupuncture treatments, but colorpuncture treatments as well, given by qualified medical doctors. Luckily they are not tuned into what the US medical system has accepted as "proven effective."

Er... Firstly, I've lived in Europe all my life and I've never met anyone who has had, or requested, colorpuncture. Neither have I ever seen colorpunture listed as an acceptable claim on any insurance documentation. Secondly, you seem to be labouring under the assumption (very common in alt-med circles) that WP is funded by Big Pharma and has some evil editorial agenda. Neither of these things are true. Wikipedia users (all of them independent human beings, operating independently), simply require evidence for statements. Thirdly, I didn't say that you can't use Oschman as a source. I simply thought that your comments regarding colorpuncture could not be supported with that particular source.' Now: rather than throwing your toys out the pram, how about you try editing the article again. Using the source properly this time and making supportable statements. Finally, please sign your replies with four tildes: ~~~~ and lets carry on this dicussion on the article's talk page, not here. Famousdog (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not contributing to the colorpuncture article talk page because I do not support the model used here for wikipedia. Your reply illustrates what I call the "scientist wearing blinders." You've lived in Europe and have not met anyone who's received a colorpuncture session from a doctor (or any other practitioner probably). And that is your answer to what I've stated about colorpuncture's presence in Europe. Unless you work in an insurance company you're probably never going to "see colorpunture listed as an acceptable claim on any insurance documentation." None of that has anything to do with Colorpuncture's presence in Europe or it's efficacy. The fact that Quackwatch enjoys a different standard of verification to what I would need to meet your requirements in order to contribute to an article means I'm not interested in wikipedia. This will be the last message.

Quackwatch gets to express pure opinion unverified by any source neither scientific or otherwise. It is exemplary of the crowd who sit on the sidelines doing NO research whatever and speak with authority on how things are either verified or not, in the traditional scientific sense. Acupuncture meridians have not been verified. So, the experience of millions of people in China over a period of 5,000 years is BY INFERENCE invalidated- tossed out. All those people being helped - it was probably all in their heads. Poor folks, believed in a "quack" method. Never mind it helped hundreds of millions of people. I wonder if you're also a contributor to Quackwatch? Another common theme with scientists who wear blinders is they love labels. So I'm labeled as belonging to the "alt-med" circle. Please include me out of that circle. When I need to be treated by an allopathic doctor, then I go and get treated. However since I think for myself, and pay attention to my own investigative enquiry, I've found that there is a huge amount that happens at the hands of mainstream medical doctors that is plainly and simply not helpful and even harmful. Doctors using "verified" medical treatments. So I've also investigated alternative methods which I've found to work. I don't need verification from traditional scientists. When I need directions I don't ask someone wearing blinders. In order to contribute to wikipedia I would need to learn what you think is needed for verification, and then probably never have my contribution show up in an actual article. Anybody with a life does not have that kind of time.

Finally, the double standard you participate in maintaining started back when sub atomic particle research began. The research then started splitting the scientific community largely because a lot of scientists starting going with theories which could not be "verified" in the traditional way, or which flew in the face of the scientific paradigm at that time. It's either matter, or it's energy, it cannot be both at the same time. There are still plenty of scientists who need to believe that. Thus was born the atomic age. IF you really want to be consistent with the stand point that non verified phenomenon should not be accepted as able to significantly impact our reality - not our UNDERSTANDING of reality, but our reality itself - then make sure you never switch a light bulb on which is powered by an atomic reactor. Because you'll be enjoying light produced by an unverified theoretical source. The UNVERIFIED theory underlying nuclear power is that if you throw a sub atomic particle at an atom hard enough, that particle enters the atom, splitting it and releasing energy. No one has ever seen that happen. No one has ever isolated a sub atomic particle like a neutron, and weighed it, measured it's mass, and put it in a box labeled "sub atomic particle." The theory to this day is unverified in the sense you are asking articles to be in your section of wikipedia to be.

Let's ask the hundreds of thousands of people who died in Japan in 1945 if an unverified phenomenon can change the basic nature of reality. Oooops. We can't, they're all dead. You can believe whatever you want, including that to be "real" something needs verification (whatever that means to you). But to exercise your opinion which is born out of your own world view created by your blinders as an editorial policy for a source of knowledge contributed to by informed community at large, which is what wikipedia purports to be, is a double standard which would require someone like me to bend over backwards to sort through your world view to come up with something acceptable to you. As I said, anybody with a life does not have that kind of time. You can answer this, if you'd like to have the last word in this discussion, but it will not be read by me. ~~~~

One more thing. In regards to James Oschman's book you've written "As far as I can tell, he makes a living selling books (books are not peer-reviewed scientific sources) about various alternative medicine practices that have not been proved effective (or have been proved ineffective)."

As far as you can tell? You mean you have not spent any time reading any of the over 100 articles he's gotten published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? And THAT is your criteria for throwing Oschman out, and concluding he makes his living selling bogus books - as far as you can tell? That's really due dilligence there. And you want to ask ME to spend more time researching MY contributions. I'm left with no choice here, except to say, that's simply arrogant. Your user name has more relevance than you might think. ~~~~

I have no time for this. As I said above: "I didn't say that you can't use Oschman as a source." You made one edit that I reverted because it wasn't really contributing any useful information to the article (look back at your edit and tell me that it improved the article in any way), was sourced to a secondary source (Oschman's book isn't actually about colorpuncture, it just mentions it once as an aside on p 139) and, crucially, was cited to a source that didn't seem to support the statement for which it was used as a citation (your edits don't match what it says on p 139). For reverting it and then trying to explain my reversion to you I just get a load of abuse. Grow up. Famousdog (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)