User talk:Consist

Your recent edits at Cladistics

Hello Consist. It seems possible that you are the same editor who has recently been making changes of this article as the IP address 83.254.23.159 (talk · contribs). If you are, you should take note of a warning I left on the IP's talk page:

Hello 83.254. Cladistics is full of paradoxes, as we know. Nevertheless, if you continue to add your personal views in the Cladistics article, without trying to get support from other editors first, you will probably be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please try to make sensible contributions on Talk:Cladistics, and be sure you can give evidence for your own views by citing published articles. Generally we do not allow people to add their personal point of view to articles. Do that on your own website, if you feel a need to express those thoughts. EdJohnston (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 12 hours. If you continue as you are, both you and the IP will probably wind up both being permanently blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the same ip. I am also identical to Mats Envall who recently falsified cladism using empirical evidence (the relativity of time) in the reference I include. I have thus shown that cladism is empirically wrong, that is, wrong. To me, it is incomprehensible that you ban me from inclding these findings in the definition of cladistics (or cladism which I prefer to call it). Normally, we simply discard models that have been proven to be wrong in science. For how long will cladism be allowed to discard science (and facts)? Consist (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have to add that the definition of 'cladistics' does not appear as an explanation of the concept, but as a PR of the comprehension. It is analogous to if creationists should be allowed to formulate their explanation of creationism. In this case editors of Wikipedia however willingly allows adversaries like "In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.[2]" These editors obviously look at creationism from the outside and then adversary opinions are allowed in the beginning of the page. Definitions of comprehensions is a difficult matter. What is the definition of Buddhism (from the inside or from the outside, from a christian or from an islamic point of view)? Cladism is such a view, and it denies science. I only try to explain that it is wrong.Consist (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try to work with the editors at Cladistics by discussing the changes at the talk page instead of, by making heavy-handed edits without discussion or edit summaries, appearing to work against them. —C.Fred (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have falsified cladism. Its denial of paraphyletic groups is simply empirically wrong. Paraphyletic groups do exist, whereas holophyletic groups (which cladism calls monophyletic groups) do not exist, have not existed, cannot exist nor can have existed. Cladism confuses process and pattern, acknowledging process as if it is pattern although pattern (i.e., reality) is the correct choice for "acknowledgement". My article has been scrutinized by at least 6 reviewers (possibly 10), whereas cladism never was published in any scientific journal before Farris and Nelson dragged it into biological systematics. The reason it wasn't accepted by any scientific journal is that it is wrong.Consist (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To Ed, I have to correct: cladism isn't "full of paradoxes"; it is wrong. All of us will of course find ourselves in a world of paradoxes if we are wrong about the relations between reality and our comprehension of it. Paradoxes (like that the bumble-bee shouldn't be able to fly) are of course due to our inability to understand reality; they are not existing phenomena. The paradoxes in cladism are due to the fact that cladism is inconsistent, self-contradictory and wrong. Such comprehensions are of course paradoxical. How could they be otherwise? Cladism is a black hole in science. It is conceptualization the other way around. Consist (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To C.Fred, I have to direct the question: why should I "work with the editors" at cladistics? If I had shown that alcohol causes sceletal cancer, should I then "work with the editors" at 'sceletal cancer' to enforce my findings on the page? Shouldn't they adopt my findings as soon as they are published? I of course understand that cladism is a particularly complicated error, since it has been enforced since the early 1970-ies, but this is the situation Ashlock warned for. Accepting an inconsistency does not provide a good foundation for a future building. The ground may disappear when the building has been raised. The conclusion that cladism is wrong is analogous to the conclusion that the emperor is naked. It is a fact. If cladists want to discuss in what parts it may be right, then they have to formulate questions we can look for an answer on. "Natural" is everything that isn't true, but feels nice.Consist (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the article is on cladistics. The introduction explains what cladistics is. It may be appropriate to discuss, in a good length paragraph deeper in the article what the main criticisms are; many articles have a Criticisms section. The disclaimer neither explains the criticisms nor does it provide any aid to an overall understanding of what cladistics is. That's why it's inappropriate for the introduction.

As for why you should work with the editors...Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, so by definition, you have to work with the other editors. Wording isn't decreed by any individual; it's edited by the group as a consensus is reached on the best phrasing. —C.Fred (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

C.Fred: The first problem you mention obviously does not apply on other comprehensions of reality, like creationism. Cladism is obviously treated with silk gloves. The second point of view, that the introduction explains what cladism is, is only partially true; it explains what cladism is from a cladist's perspective. That's why I chossed to place my comment here. Your third comment, that I should critize cladism deeper down in the article, falls on that I don't critisize cladism. I explain that it is inconsistent, self-contradictory and empirically wrong, that is, wrong. You're right about that I don't explain what cladism is; I only makes a note of caution that it is inconsistent, self-contradictory and wrong.

As for the wording, the correct wording is that cladism is inconsistent, self-contradictory and wrong. This message should be hidden as little as possible by words.Consist (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything against cladism. I only want to clarify that it (in the form of denial of paraphyletic groups)is anti-science, and that this does not agree with facts. I just want to put this "denial" in its proper place (i.e., in its proper category: beliefs). The difference between it and other beliefs is that it can be falsified. Paraphyletic groups groups do actually exist as witnessed by the relativity of time. Consist (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Cladistics

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not erasing anything. Im not in any war. I'm trying to convey the fact that cladism is inconsistent, self-contradictory and wrong. I am, however, constantly erased by cladists.Consist (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, feel free to do that in a section about the criticisms of cladism, not in the introduction. And, of course, make sure you have independent reliable sources that demonstrate the criticism. —C.Fred (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above, I don't criticize cladism; I explain that it is inconsistent, self-contradictory and wrong, which I also have proven empirically in my article Envall, M. 2008. On mono-, holo- and paraphyletic groups - a consistent distinction of process and pattern. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 94:217-220. Cladism's denial of paraphyletic groups is falsified by the relativity of time. What is then left of it?Consist (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything that isn't your original research. It hasn't ceased to be a field of biology just because your paper was published. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Read my words carefully: cladism's denial of paraphyletic groups is inconsistent, self-contradictory and empirically wrong. It defines both single and several things in a row as single things. It simply confuses single and several things in a row conceptually. This confusion does not agree with facts, because it equalizes time and space, thereby leaving no possibilities for time to be relative, which it obviously is. It means that facts falsify the confusion. It does not mean that facts falsify phylogenetic analysis nor phylogenetic trees, but only the confusion of time and space, that is, the notion that paraphyletic groups are not monophyletic groups (i.e., that they can be "denied"). They can be "denied" as little as facts can be denied. The "denial" of them is not only a denial of facts, but also a denial of the fundament for science, that is, single things, in favor for a recognition of kinds. It is a confusion of thing and kind that leads to recognition of kinds instead of things. That's the explanation for its loads of paradoxes. The world is full of paradoxes if one believes something that is wrong. Cladism's confusion of single things with several things in a row is not only partially wrong; it is totally wrong. It is as wrong as anything can be. Why am I not allowed to post a warning for this conceptual black hole in the beginning of cladist's explanation of the route into it?Consist (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not disclaimered. You can add a section of criticisms against cladistics later in the article, but adding your disclaimer in the intro gives undue weight and violates original research and neutral point-of-view.

Additionally, please do not add the disclaimer anonymously/without logging in as a way of circumventing these warnings. That may be deemed abuse of multiple accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your first point above, the article contains no "original research" nor any "neutral-point-of-view". It is a point of view that is written by a believer (i.e., a cladist). My point of view, however, is based on my research. I have examined cladism's denial of paraphyletic groups and found it to be incompatible with facts. It means that the article here (about cladism) is a point of view, which I falsify with facts. My role in this is, of course, negliable. Cladism's denial of paraphyletic groups is incompatible with facts irrespectively of whether I say it or even exist or not.

Concerning your latter request, I will, of course, do what I can to inform people that the reason for cladism's innumerable paradoxes is that it is wrong. Not all of us want to live in a conceptual world filled with paradoxes, even if you appear to prefer to. I offer you and everyone else a conceptual world lacking paradoxes.But, I repeat, I do not criticize cladism. I merely explain that its denial of paraphyletic groups is incompatible with science (actually a denial of science). I do not deny anyone to embrace a denial of paraphyletic groups, but just to confuse it with science, because this denial and science are actually mutually exclusive. I thus deny an inconsistent, self-contradictory and empirically wrong comprehension, because it is inconsistent, self-contradictory and empirically wrong. What other options do I have?Consist (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to take your disclaimer, boil down the content of it from the "this is wrong" statements, and make a criticisms section of it. Please join in the discussion at Talk:Cladistics about this section if you would like to change it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally, regarding this text in your comment above: "My point of view, however, is based on my research. I have examined cladism's denial of paraphyletic groups and found it to be incompatible with facts." That's a pretty clear admission that you're using original research in your edits. —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally? Your first comment is wrong. My disclaimer does not boil down to "this is wrong" statements, it points at research results that falsifies cladism's denial of paraphyletic groups (i.e., science). Your second comment is incomprehensible. Does the fact that I'm using original research disqualify my contribution? Isn't this original research worth anything, or am I forbidden to use it? I am, of course, interested in that it is spread, because it explains the innumerable pardoxes you mentioned above. How should we otherwise get rid of them?Consist (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We can only get rid of paradoxes by improving our models of reality. Cladism's confusion of single things with several things in a row (including the simultaneous confusion of pattern and process, before and after with now, etcetera) eradicates science's progress since Aristotle. In order to understand evolution, we have to be able to differentiate pattern and process in light of this model, because both pattern and process are facts. Cladism's confusion of them is a denial of science and also the seed for denial of cladism itself. Improving our models of reality has to rest on the Linnean classification, because it is the only 4-dimensional categorization we have. It is actually a consistent categorization of phylogenies (i.e., dichotomously branching processes). This is also acknowledged in the comprehension that is called evolutionary systematics, and which is represented in the evolutionary scientific journals. My contribution is only that I have presented evidence that cladism's denial of paraphyletic goups is empirically wrong, that is, wrong. Isn't that an important fact to be included in the first sections of the definition of it? Science is not wrong. Or, has being right or wrong lost its importance? Consist (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

C.Fred, I understand your irritation on my claims of being right, since it is impossible to find a single true statement about reality. The exception is when you talk about conceptualization, because it concerns the tool we use to discuss reality and there is, of course, a single true description of this tool. My finding (i.e., that cladism's denial of paraphyletic groups is empirically wrong) does, however, mean that a description of conceptualization also is existentially right. The problem with being right in this sense does, however, only include discarding statements that are wrong. It cannot distinguish between statements that cannot be proven to be wrong. In this particular case, however, I prove that cladism's denial of paraphyletic groups is wrong. And since it is only contested by the Linnean classification, it leaves the Linnean classification as the winner. This reasoning is also compatible with Wittgesteins reasonings. Semantics simply has a more crucial position in comprehensions of reality than is acknowledged by cladists. Their problem is that I prove them wrong. 83.254.23.159 (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear C.Fred, how can you in the criticism section of cladistics (cladism) write that "Envall has argued that cladism's denial of paraphyletic groups goes against Linnean science's acceptance of them". It's not something I argue, it's a truism. They not only "goes against" each other, they are mutually exclusive - a denial and an acceptance of one and the same kind of things are, of course, mutually exclusive points of views. What Envall does, is that he falsifies cladism's denial of paraphyletic groups using empirical facts (just as any scientific testing of hypotheses). He shows that the hypothesis is wrong - paraphyletic groups actually cannot be denied without contradicting facts. The reasoning may be difficult to understand, but it does none the less qualify as a scientific truth till someone has explained the discrepancy between the denial and facts. This excludes the denial from science instead turning it into a a belief (not agreeing with facts). I thus change the wording in this section.Consist (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is a scientific truth, there will be multiple other sources that will agree with Envall. (The easier they are to locate and review, all the better; anything published on the Internet gives a definite advantage in access of the source material by other editors.)

Regardless, the content of the article is not a matter for your talk page. It is a matter for the talk page of the article. Discussion is ongoing there about the wording of the criticisms section. Feel free to join in the discussion after your block expires. —C.Fred (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My statement that "denial of paraphyletic groups is inconsistent, self-contradictory and empirically wrong, that is, factually wrong" is scientifically proven true. It does not necessarily mean that many, or even any other source will agree with it. Not if it dismantles them to be confused. Luckily, science is not about how many people that agree about a certain hypothesis, but about whether the hypothesis agrees with facts or not, and my statement above agrees with facts (i.e., denial of paraphyletic groups is inconsistent, self-contradictory and factually wrong). My statement is thus a truth irrespectively of how many people that agree with it until someone has explained (explained away) the discrepance between the denial and facts. What do you, C.Fred, suggest that I shall do? Lie down and accept that cladism spreads an inconsistent, self-contradictory and erroneous teaching that denies facts and science? No, I won't?Consist (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have all the time in the world, since the denial of paraphyletic groups will continue to be wrong for ever. I'll return tomorrow, the next day, the next week, the next month, the next year and so on... My earning of my wage isn't coupled to my struggle to lift truth into the definition of cladism in Wikipedia.Consist (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 12 hours

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The encyclopedia has processes and procedures to ensure that every notable viewpoint upon a subject is included in the article; this ensures that the project is not derailed by trying to incorporate every interest groups preferred representation of their viewpoint. This policy, known as Neutral point of view, is non-negotiable, and repeated infraction will result in accounts who violate it being stopped from editing. Wikipedia makes no claim on the "truth" of a subject in part or in whole, but only that the viewpoints provided are verifiable in other reliable sources. Please take the advice of editors who are trying to incorporate your viewpoint into the article, and not remove content which indicates a viewpoint different than your own. Further disruption from this account will likely result in further and extended blocks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As you conclude above, neutrality is impossible. Every statement has to take its stand in some viewpoint, The contribution I was blocked for took its stand in a scientific view. I merely brought to the attention in the definition of cladistcs that its denial of paraphyletic groups is a simultaneous denial of facts and science. This is an important disclaimer in the definition of cladistics, since its denial of facts and science isn't immediately obvious and that it therefore may be confused with science. I hope a scientific view may qualify as a neutral point of view, since it at least acknowledges agreeable facts (like the relativity of time). The contribution was furthermore provided with references to verifiable sources. Finally, I have not removed any content "which indicates a different viewpoint than my own", but have instead been removed from the article as a different viewpoint on the concept the article defines. The problem with concepts like these, i.e., beliefs, is who will be allowed to define them, since they look different from the inside than from the outside (as you also conclude above). The problem with my contribution on this particular concept is that it denies my viewpoint. It actually denies all viewpoints that look at it, since it believes itself to be The Natural Viewpoint. However, don't worry. I will continue to contest cladistic's denial of my viewpoint (i.e., science) despite any blockings or other obstacles. Consist (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You do not understand how Wikipedia works

Please see the following guidelines, essays, and rules. Whatever else you get out of them, at least you may be able to see why others react the way they do to you:

• Conflict of interest: You are pushing your own research.
• Ownership: You are attempting to own articles.
• Soapbox: You are treating classification articles and their talk pages as your own forum, and you act as if you are on a crusade for the truth.
• You have shown several characteristics of tenditious editing: You have been blocked for edit warring, you returned to the same article after your block was over, you challenge reversion of your edits, you say the same things over and over without convincing anyone, and you do not thread your talk page posts. You offer unintelligible non sequiturs on talk pages as explanations for your actions.
• Undue weight and Fringe science: You are putting undue weight on one study (which happens to be your own), out of proportion to its importance.
• Sockpuppeting: You have evaded a ban with Consists to further an edit war.
• Talk pages: It is very bad form to alter the comments of others, as you did on Talk:Linnaean taxonomy. It is also bad form to insert comments into stale threads.

In short, to this point, you have been a classic disruptive editor. You do not seem to understand the point of Wikipedia or how to operate within it, nor have you shown any interest in learning. Please reconsider. J. Spencer (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:PhyloCode

I have reverted this edit at Talk:PhyloCode since it is a personal attack and doesn't discuss how to improve the article, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines espescially the first two sentences.Sjö (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)