Talk:Anthroposophy/Archive 8

Request for comment about whether Anthroposophy has "Applications" or "Claimed/purported applications"

Should practical areas of work anthroposophists have founded be termed "applications" or "claimed/purported applications"? Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

In favor of "Applications" or "Practical applications"

There are numerous reliable sources that state that Waldorf education, biodynamic agriculture, eurythmy, and other fields of work founded by anthroposophists are "practical applications" of anthroposophy. There have been no reliable sources given that suggest these are not "practical applications". Adding the term "claimed" or "purported" seems to introduce editorial bias. Editors have been persistent in adding these terms, however, to the section title in the article. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support a simple "Applications" with no potentially judgmental labelling, from both grammar and WP:WEIGHT of being the most frequent phrasing. It simply is an application when something is being used for some purpose, whether or not that others think that is good or proven effective. "Practical applications" seems a distant second because of the much lesser WP:WEIGHT of use at least by Google count, and the potential confusion between multiple meanings of "Practical"

(1 - as in an action versus just theorizing and speculation;

(2 - as manifested in practice or repetition for a process or machine; or

(3 - as capable or being used, useful or effective

Whether or not one thinks it works, when someone is using it for something that is "applying" it. Whether it is "practical application" is context-dependent.

"Claimed" applications should not be used as simply a false description and comes off as a bit of untrustworthy editorializing. People are using X in the field of Y or to do Y -- the fact of applying it for attempted purposes is not in doubt, is it? Also, that phrase is not showing any WP:WEIGHT of use at all, at least it is not in Google. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the idea of saying "Purported applications" is just a category error. You can apply something which does not work, in total good faith - for example, I believe the evidence is that dowsing is totally without foundation, yet it was used probably for centuries to determine the best [according to the wisdom of the time] location for a well. To talk of "purported applications of dowsing" would suggest that modern supporters were claiming (without evidence) that dowsing was used in antiquity for choosing well locations. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

RS for "practical applications"

• Hammer, The Occult World, p. 350: "There are numerous practical applications, including Waldorf pedagogy, eurythmy...and biodynamic farming....there is a substantial Anthroposophical visual and material culture, manifested in architecture, in mystery plays, even in commercial products..."
• Gilhus, Western Esotericism in Scandinavia, p. 54. "The practical applications of Anthroposophy have been far more significant...The most important fruits of the Anthroposophical tree are the Waldorf schools...the Camphill movement...biodynamic agriculture and banking..."
• Jones, "Capitalism and the Environment," in Evolutions of Capitalism, p. 201. "the application of Steiner's ideas...biodynamic agriculture...new businesses in industries as diverse as food and finance...socially progressive...social movements...this was accompanied by shifts within the movement itself towards a greater focus on developing practical applications of the philosophy...the first Anthroposphical bank was launched..."
• McKanan, Eco-Alchemy: Anthroposophy and the History and Future of Environmentalism, University of California Press, pp. 70-110. "Anthroposophical initiatives--farms, schools, intentional communities--began to supplant the society as the public face of anthroposophy." McKanan refers to these and other initiatives as "practical anthroposophy," mentioning Waldorf schools, biodynamic farming, Camphill communities. "If the impulse to move quickly to the practical sphere has been part of anthroposophy from the beginning, it has become the dominant feature since 1970....This practical ethos characterizes anthroposophical initiatives founded in 1970 and thereafter...Waldorf school...biodynamic farm, a center for adult education and Waldorf teacher training, a publishing house, an art school, a theater, a research center on the threefold society, and another research center devoted to 'farmscape ecology'." He goes on to mention a "center for anthroposophical water work...the Water Research Institute".
• Svetoslava Toncheva, Out of the New Spirituality of the Twentieth Century p. 125
• Handbook of Nordic New Religions, p. 57: "practical manifestations" of anthroposophy include Waldorf schools, anthroposophical medicine, biodynamic agriculture, anthroposophic architecture, and the Christian Community. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

In favor of "Claimed applications" or "Purported applications"

• I don't understand what the fuss is about. On one hand, these are quite literally applying Anthroposophy to real-world problems. On the other hand, all such applications are mainly pseudoscientific, pseudoscholarly, or bogus, according to the reality-based community. E.g. Dr. Scott Wayne Infante applied his knowledge of faith healing (he seems to be a faith healer) to writing A Systematic Review of the Psychological, Physiological, & Spiritual Effects of Pornography on Males. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm confused. You say that these are literally applications of anthroposophy. So why are you in favor of adding "claimed" or "purported"?

  I have no idea what faith healing has to do with any of this. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Dr. Infante applied faith healing to porn, while the reality-based community says faith healing is bogus. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  tgeorgescu - please clarify - for the RFC question on anthroposophy, why are you posting at the area in favor of adding "claimed" or "purported" when your text indicates otherwise at “these are quite literally applying Anthroposophy to real-world problems” ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: What I meant is that the claims of both sides are true. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• the point is Anthroposophy is fringe, that needs to be clear, 'Practical applications' makes it sound like can actually apply nonsense. That said i really don't care how this is made clear to the reader just 'applications' with a with a section lead feels cumbersome—blindlynx 14:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  Should the way reliable sources describe these matters not have precedence, though? Essentially every one of these uses the term 'practical applications' without weird qualifications. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  No. Just because you think these necessary qualifications are "weird", does not make it so. See my previous response which has already answered this issue, here. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 16:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why not go with the wording used by reliable sources? I have seen no response to this question. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's the simplest way to convey to the reader that these things aren't grounded in reality—blindlynx 02:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  blindlynx - please provide examples RS that also felt so and used either of these exact phrases. WP:MOSHEAD indicates such a non-neutral section WP:POVNAME would be when the prevalence is so common as to override concerns of appearing to favor a side - and my Google did not find use of those phrasings. FWIW, I think conveying points would be better done in the text than the section title anyway, as that allows greater length and showing the supporting source cites. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  like I've said before, I have no problem with conveying it in the section, this just felt easier. I still oppose the use of the term 'practical' though—blindlynx 14:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

Some psychiatrists believe that Gurus are unmedicated mild schizophrenics in a constant psychosis, I can also say the same exact thing here. You shout words that are true, but again, it has little to do with the article, and the situation here. Fadix 18:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Price, John S; Stevens, Anthony (1998). "The Human Male Socialization Strategy Set". Evolution and Human Behavior. 19 (1). Elsevier BV: 57–70. doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(97)00105-0. ISSN 1090-5138. Many studies of cults and revitalization movements have noted that the leaders are susceptible both to auditory hallucinations and sudden changes in beliefs. The schizotype, we suggest, is someone who has the capacity to shed the commonly held and socially determined world view of his natal group, and to create a unique and arbitrary world view of his own, into which he may indoctrinate others and become a prophet, or fail to indoctrinate others and become a psychotic patient.

My point: anthroposophy is a delusional belief system of a crazy guru.

Of course Rudolf Steiner heard voices speaking in his head, he called it the Siddhi of "inspiration". So, now when you hear anthroposophists talking about the paranormal ability of "inspiration" you know what they mean. It means that they hear voices talking in their head. Of course, they usually follow a rule of "don't ask, don't tell" (i.e. they keep mum about their own paranormal abilities), but that's what they mean by it. I'm in fact surprised that many people don't know what they mean by it, since it is anthroposophy 101. It is from the books actually written by him, not from stenographer conferences which may include mistakes. (Most of his books are based upon written notes taken during his speeches.) tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)