Manul/Vzaak’s Evidence, Debunked

Vzaak’s testimony:

8.) Tumbleman does not seem to possess enough basic knowledge about how science works, which is not so bad in itself, but he floods the talk page with comments stemming from this lack of competence. For instance here he is going on about falsifiability (copied from sockpuppet investigation): [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74].

#8 Debunked:

Vzaak’s charge that ‘ I do not know how Science works’ is unnecessary, since this was a biography article – and no one needs to understand science to check references. Secondly, while I am not a scientist, I do know how the philosophy of science works, and anyone can see that Vzaak’s statements regarding Sheldrake fall under philosophy and not science to begin with. I request the reader to actually click on those ‘diffs’ and read for themselves. I think if you do, you will find reasoned argumentation about Rupert Sheldrake’s biography, sources and context not about his science.

Ironically enough, in Vzaak’s own ‘Response to Sheldrake‘ on her talk page states that on Wikipedia –  “The only applicable “training” is to read the policies.”

I am proud of all of those arguments and many of those arguments have been picked up by the majority of other editors since I was banned.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.