User:Cesar Tort
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This user loves Islamic architecture so much that would like to see it conquering the world in an utopian future... But, on the other hand, he abhors radical Islam and likes Pat Condell’s anti-Islamist jeremiads in YouTube...
(If you can stand Condell's video, please continue reading the text in my subpage.)
[edit] Child abuse
My field of interest is child abuse by parents (see, above all, the article Infanticide), and the consequences of abuse in adult life: addictions, falling prey of cults, perpetrating acts of Muslim terrorism and all sort of psychoses (see also Trauma model of mental disorders and Alice Miller).
More popular accounts of parents who drive their children mad can be found in the bestseller Toxic Parents and in the movie Shine, which won the Academy Award for Best Actor in 1996. The touching film A.I. conveys the emotions of a child's infinite attachment to a mother who abandoned him, but unlike Shine Spielberg's movie is fictional.
Child abuse and the pseudoscience named psychiatry are related. Why this is so is shown in my web page. And this can only mean that, like academics, many Wikipedia editors of the psychiatry-related articles commit a—:
[edit] Category error
This is a personal communication from a wikipedian friend who already left Wikipedia. It has been retrieved from my talk page:
I notice you've been involved in a lengthy arbitration dispute. I've looked at quite a few Wikipedia psychology/psychiatry articles. I notice that editors often accept POV assertions that correspond to a mechanistic view of human nature while contesting social explanations, even though good evidence is cited. I think there's a bias built-in to the Wikipedia user-base: a large proportion of registered users have a background in science, technology and software engineering. This means that Wikipedia frequently has better coverage of scientific, mathematical and software related issues than ink-on-paper encyclopedias. Those kinds of articles are more likely to be kept up to date with the latest developments. On the other hand, most (but not all) scientists and engineers typically favour mechanistic explanations of human nature. I suggest you read this article.
Quoted in that link: "In truth, we shouldn't be at all surprised that academic psychology is so... well, academic. Or should we? After all, it has now been over two centuries since Kant forever proved the futility of using the ‘it’ language of objective naturalism or pure reason to describe or capture the ‘I’ domain of the subjective self. Nevertheless, the ‘physics envy’ of most university psychologists leads them to commit the category error of studying the interior self like an exterior object, leading them to become either connoisseurs of the obvious (i.e., behaviorists) or champions of the preposterous (feminist ‘anti-attachment’ theorists). If your only tool is a hammer you'll treat everything like a nail, and if your only method is ‘empirical science,’ your conclusions are hidden in your method: the self is reduced to just another objective fact, no different than rocks or planets."
Then you might save yourself a never ending struggle. I don't believe this bias is likely to be overcome within Wikipedia. I have a limited amount of time available for contributions and edits, so I will be avoiding psychology/psychiatry related articles like the plague. —Bookish 11:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Since mind and brain are a unified field in nature, the above mention of Kant doesn't mean that I endorse dualism (let alone the lunatic Scientology critique of psychiatry).
[edit] Letter to the president of the Wikimedia Foundation
What I wrote below must be understood in the specific context of the psychiatric drugging of sane children and teenagers. In other subjects —JFK or 9/11 conspiracy theories, paranormal claims, Holocaust denial, satanic ritual abuse, UFOs, alternative medicine and many, many more lunacies— I wholeheartedly agree with the so-called "due-weight" policy in Wikipedia.
Dear Jimbo:
I believe that establishment defenders are the biggest threat to Wikipedia. The WP:RFAR case was about psychiatry. Well: like millions of children Prometheuspan was falsely diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or ADHD —and the Wikipedia articles on the subject don't fully expose this shrink pseudoscience. Like other articles it doesn't do justice to violations of human rights by "experts". Any psychiatric claim can be said here as long as it's in "neutral" language or according to so-called "due weight" policy even if it's a propagandistic lie.
Furthermore, Prometheuspan's project to make Wikipedia less abusive through mere logic isn't radical. My proposal is indeed radical, but totally at odds with the current Zeitgeist since I'm against the very notion of NPOV. To put it in a nutshell: Neutrality in crime subjects, such as the ADHD lie, is a crime itself.
I don't believe in Wikipedia or any paper encyclopedia. I believe in encyclopedias that debunk the lies and are written by society's dissidents. But after Diderot's POV Encyclopédie, which changed the worldview of Europeans for the better two centuries ago, nothing similar has happened in the West. Hence among many other abuses millions of healthy children will continue to be psychiatrically drugged by their parents with Ritalin or other controversial psycho-stimulants. And unless the silly NPOV policy is questioned and the spirit of Diderot implemented, like other encyclopedias Wikipedia will be replete of groupthink ideologues, status quo defenders and doubleplusgood duckspeakers.
Only a latter-day Encyclopédie would transform a wiki caterpillar into a glorious butterfly.
—Cesar Tort, 25 June 2006
In the flaming debate quoted above, Ark added:
| “ | I have a much narrower view of what a person can learn from a wiki than you do. In my view, NPOV pretty much makes it impossible to learn something because it forces every fact and every argument to be either so vague as to be useless, with qualifiers and secondary arguments boilerplating it. | ” |
The context of my letter to Jimbo can be guessed in this comment. Something very wrong with the academia, Wikipedia and society in general must exist when a vandal tells the truth and his comments are immediately reverted from mainspace.
Secular humanist users
