Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Siggy_G » Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:58 pm

And...

Concluding Quandries
* The Wikipedia community needs to
decide whether it is going to provide
reliably vetted articles or if it will
accommodate those pseudoscience POVpushers
who have the motivation to
promote their ideas nearly full time.


Ok... For starters, what about proper Wikipedia articles that at least allow for explaining properly and factually what a given model/theory/notion is about? Instead of deleting that explanation. It doesn't matter if it contradicts the consensus. If it does, one can explain that in a proper manner. Secondary, I'd say there are others who rather seem to be pushing POV, and EU advocates would be outnumbered by those anyway - by far. Isn't ScieniceAppologist/Schroeder (among others) hired by Wikipedia to do this kind of stuff? Paid in some way or the other?

Admitedly, EU theorists ought to get more papers published (well, here are some TPODs on the peer review process...) and get some press coverage to inform the public that such a theory and interpretation of the universe exists. That would help a lot.
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:28 pm

So what do you think to my psychological analysis of this ?
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Siggy_G » Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:53 pm

Phorce wrote:So what do you think to my psychological analysis of this ?


That could be a good point. Science is supposed to be about collecting/interpreting/discussing data, and even consider several models until several aspects are proven or falsified. When several aspects are neither proven nor falsified, one have to have a few models open for investigation and further work. Now, in regards to Schroeder, yeah, I'm sure that by defending current consensus, and labeling anything challenging it pseudoscience, he has figured that the majority of his "audience" will applaud his reasonings. "Those in majority are always right". "Always consider what people will say, and choose the strongest's way."

He has simply followed the ten commandments for a young man/scientist who wants to proceed in life:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3389
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:53 pm

Yes, but did you follow any of my links ? What I think is happening here is that some of these attacks have nothing to do with EU or Science at all but are Narcissistic Abuse, Sociopaths and other people exhibiting bullying behaviour that is niche seeking. In other words the charged nature of debate (after all maybe a kind of paradigm shift) allows some individuals to posture as "protectors of Science" when really they have just found a place to feed their narcissistic addiction (as Vaknin would put it). I continue to see people debating the content of some of the messages from these people while failing to DISCERN between genuine criticism and obsession.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby davesmith_au » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:34 pm

Phorce if you like to analyze, then analyze this if you have hours to spare:

Pig Wrestling

I tend to agree with your assessment. Schroeder should be an embarrassment to mainstream academia. Which is probably the reason behind him trying to erase all trace of his IRL (In Real Life) identity from Wikipedia, after he had made a point about telling those there how well educated he was by 'outing' himself previously, including linking to a page a Princeton which had his photo on it. Then the photo disappeared from the Princeton site, and Schroeder went about erasing his steps. He claims someone was harassing him in real life. Is it any wonder? But my hunch is that the head honchos at Princeton were embarrassed by his posturing on Wikipedia so they told him to maintain anonymity. Perhaps it was a combination of both?

Anyhow, on my pigwrestling page, you'll also notice lots of posts by user Phaedrus7. Take a look at the page for C. Leroy Ellenberger and than look at the page history, who has contributed most to that page. I know that Phaedrus7 IS Ellenberger, but of course I am prevented from alluding to that fact on Wikipedia because of its 'no outing' rules.

Both Schroeder and Ellenberger have a history of attempting to slur the name of David Talbott, yet both deny any conflict of interest (COI). I declared my potential COI BEFORE I began trying to make changes to Talbott's biography. As you will see by the collated information on the pigwrestling page, it was a futile exercise. Not only do I not have the time required to do battle with these zealots, no-one can get around the barrage of backup they'll call in when challenged.

Now to get back to the comments by Phorce, take a look at the Plasma Cosmology talk page, under the subheading "Expert needed" and you'll find this gem:

Wikipedia Talk Page on Plasma Cosmology wrote:An anonymous editor just requested an expert to look at this article. I certainly do not not object to further work by an expert, but I doubt that you will be able to find anyone on Wikipedia more expert on this specialized sideline of science than ScienceApologist and myself, who have already contributed heavily. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


What a croc! Carlson would do well not to align himself too closely with Schroeder. Schroeder has not published a single scientific paper to my knowledge, though he is listed as a co-author of a couple of SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey) papers along with a HUGE number of co-authors. This could hardly amount to expertise in Plasma Cosmology, nor in fact in any cosmology.

Cheers, Dave.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:09 am

You have clearly identified the anomalies. Why not move to next stage ? Bring in the big guns from other areas of academic research so these kind of gross misrepresentations can be tackled and the Science of EU - Plasma Cosmology - can be quickly given to a world that desperately needs it.

You could start with this publication Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism: Ben Goldacre, Quackbusting and Corporate Science - free book- there must be similar publications in the field of physics and cosmology. It's in the field of health but the tactics are the same. In fact many of those tactics are so nasty that I look at them in Reichian terms as defined in Reichs book The Mass Psychology of Fascism (note: no cloudbusters or orgone here). Once I understood WHY Fascistic elements sadistically attack EU or other areas of Science desperately need by humanity, I was MUCH less annoyed by their usually sadistic behaviour.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby keeha » Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:52 am

What a destructive immature sociopath.

He has argued to get rid of Dave's page entirely! Yet I have a sibling with a wiki page just for showing up at a single sports event!

So much for ideals of progress in science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScienceApologist
I act to mitigate, redesign, and occasionally destroy the offerings of users who think that a particular "breakthrough" or "notable idea" deserves more consideration than it has gotten in the academic world. Such grandstanding is forbidden by a variety of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, and WP:REDFLAG to name just a few). Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. If Wikipedia had been around at the time of Galileo, his ideas would have been subject to my incisive commentary and editorial braggadocio — even if I agreed with him. I am a status quo promoter. NPOV-PUSHER.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/braggadocio
1 : braggart
2 a : empty boasting
b : arrogant pretension : cockiness


Is he even out of school yet?
http://www.velikovsky.info/Joshua_Schroeder

My formal background is chemistry. Would I be better served if particle theorists prevented me from learning wave theory? Yet this is what I see Schroeder doing with cosmological physics. Different theories have their strengths and a solid science background includes understanding a topic with knowledge from more than one angle or theory. Otherwise one's thinking risks being religious not scientific.
keeha
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:20 pm

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby mharratsc » Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:50 pm

Exactly. In this venue, he is most assuredly a religious zealot. :\
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Maplewood, MN

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby davesmith_au » Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:55 pm

What's more surprising though, is that he's just 'outed' himself again! He has changed his username from ScienceApologist to Joshua P Schroeder! Seems he can't make up his mind. He first outed himself a couple of years ago, then suddenly set about erasing most references to his IRL identity citing that he was being threatened or some such. Now he's gone and done a 180 degree turn. Go figure...

Perhaps he's been buffing up at the gym...

Joshua-schroeder_sml.jpg
ScienceApologist aka Joshua P Schroeder
Joshua-schroeder_sml.jpg (20.64 KiB) Viewed 9003 times


Perhaps not.

Cheers, Dave.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby mharratsc » Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:36 pm

Ok, I figured by now everyone was tired of hearing from me on the boards and I was going to shut up for a while, but this was too much:

Perhaps he's been buffing up at the gym...

I laughed until I hurt myself... o.O

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Maplewood, MN

Re: influencing wikipedia

Unread postby Grits » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:06 pm

I didn't want to start a new thread, so I thought I'd ask people reading this thread, is anyone interested in organizing a system we can use to collaboratively enforce the EU model on wikipedia? I'm thinking something along the lines of version-control systems used by software developers (SVN and the like). We might even set up a wiki just for rough drafts we intend to implant and support on wikipedia.

I realize many people reading this may not think they have the time for this sort of thing, but every minute spent would add up. Two people collaborating on wikipedia can get so much more done than just one. For starters, it's a way around the "three revert rule". When guardian admins want to enforce their view they need the support of other users for political and procedural reasons. The number of users each admin can call on readily is not inexhaustible. With concerted effort it can be overcome. With a well-designed system of collaboration this problem of time constraint of users can also be overcome by focusing attention only where it's needed.

I'm not talking about exploiting the "mob rule" aspect to wikipedia, but more along the lines of harmonizing our efforts to get this information out. The power of harmonics can not be overstated. The structure we use should be flat and transparent, not authoritarian. Users of the system will only act voluntarily and only in support of their own understanding of the material, not simply march in lockstep with other "members" (users).

I can't say I can fully illustrate what such a system would look like, but conceptually the idea seems sound. If anyone is interested, contact me privately or in this thread.
Grits
Guest
 

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:15 am

My suggestion - why not use http://citizendium.org which has a different approach that should allow better handling of controversial topics ? In my opinion WP has failed for the moment in it's handling of controversy. I tried the approach you suggest with Alternative (CAM) medicine but even with the WP procedures I quickly hit a stone wall. Editors camp on some pages and even legit references are quickly removed.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Grits » Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:39 pm

Phorce wrote:Editors camp on some pages and even legit references are quickly removed.

That's kind of my point, actually, that we should organize to change wikipedia. It can't be denied that it's always at the top of Google searches, why not exploit that to further the dissemination of this knowledge?
Grits
Guest
 

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby Phorce » Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:01 am

Yes, but see my WP user page ...

Wikipedia was created to con us into thinking that information is only exchanged through printed or transmitted words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DJBarney24

WP to me appears to be another corrupt power equation intended to lock people into a standoff with perceived gatekeepers of knowledge. A problem WP was supposed to solve. But WP has failed in this respect. It took me a while to see the light (BTW it's still good for non-controversial articles). A more intelligent approach would be to use Citizendium and of course the other wiki's devoted to plasma cosmology like http://www.plasma-universe.com

How much do Google/WP really inform people, especially from a global perspective ? Results at the top of Google pages are somewhat of a marketing illusion (clever marketing by Google). Look at other search engines like http://worldwidescience.org/ or http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ that contain many times the information that can be purely extracted through Google. Look at your local University library or areas of the world that are not held back by the sort Anglo-American cabal that likes to think it's "the mainstream". Russian, Indian, Chinese and a hundred other sources of Scientific research make up the majority of EU/Plasma and related Science and research. WP is a sort of rabbit in the headlights effect created by the big business alliance between Google and other "do no evil" internet entities.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia

Unread postby davesmith_au » Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:25 pm

Phorce wrote:My suggestion - why not use http://citizendium.org


Whilst there are other well-founded resources to replace Wikipedia, that does not negate the main problems with it. Wikipedia is where a vast number of the younger set get their information from. They shouldn't rely on it, but they do. Wikipedia features high in the search engine results of the most popular engine, Google. Wikipedia has been more or less taken over by zealots.

And the latest on my "pigwrestling" page? Schroeder tried to have it "speedy deleted", on the (false) grounds that it was an "attack page". He did this on Christmas day! An admin thought (correctly) it was not a suitable candidate for speedy deletion, but then nominated it as "Miscellaney for Deletion" which allows a seven day discussion and for editors to give their opinion on whether or not to have the page deleted. So they still probably thought they could have it done and dusted between Christmas and the new year, without any 'opposition'. I'm sure Schroeder thought I'd be "on holiday".

I threw a spanner into the works by being the first to nominate it for "keep" and showing that in fact there were no valid reasons given in the nomination to delete a page. I demanded to be shown where it violates any policy, and so "Beeblebrox" (the admin who nominated it for deletion) has, in an ad hoc fashion, 'found' two policies he says it violates. Proper reading of the policies concerned, within their context, clearly shows they are invalid as reasons to delete my page, as I have argued.

Incidentally, I have offered to rename the page or at least discuss the issue on the 'talk page' (which is supposed to happen before nominating a user's page for deletion) but to date no-one has even attempted dialogue with me there. What a fiasco!

Cheers, Dave.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Net Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest