This page: (3 Apr 2003 - 22 Jan 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive2 (22 Jan 2004 - 25 Jan 2004)
Real doctors do often look at the eyes though? I think that some medical conditions e.g. excess chloresterol deposit fat around the iris? producing a white ring? Or am I mistaken.Of course this isn't really anything to do with iridology but it might deserve a mention on this page.Theresa knott 13:24 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)
Theresa, I am a medical doctor who studies the iris and applies iridology in medical diagnosis. Does this make me less of a "real" doctor ?
Cheers, Dan
My apologies Dan. I should have been more careful. I meant. "conventional doctors" Theresa knott
PS. You may "be mistaken" about cholesterol, which might be found more in deposits around the EYES, like in xanthelasmae. The CORNEAS might have Kayser-Fleischer rings, arcus senilis, and stuff which might be mistakenly seen as belonging to the iris. Perhaps you are not mistaken about GOOD doctors ALWAYS looking at the eyes though : )
--- "Recent research articles go much deeper into the issues involved in iridial studies."
I removed this sentence as it doesn't actually add anything to the article. Perhaps if the findings of the recent studies were added it would make more sence ? Theresa knott 14:53, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
it would make more sence ?
- I'm no touch typist, I don't watch the screen as I type, plus I'm useless at spelling anyway :-( theresa knott 14:03, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(No problem, theresa knott, we are worse than you, but we just use the dreaded spell-check thing as one more step, for Wiki's sake :-(
Sure ! Only problem is they are copyrighted. Readers need to be informed that we are out of the dark ages in matters of iridial studies though. So I put the sentence back. If you still think that it doesn't actually add anything please feel free to cut it again : )
Sincerely yours, irismeister 13:45, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC)
- It is fine to quote copyrited work as long as it's in quotation marks, the authors name is given and it's only a small portion of the paper that is quoted. It is also fine to write findings up in your own words, ideas can't be copyerited on the presentation of them. So I wont remove the sentence again (in the short term anyway) I'll give you a change to write in some more detail theresa knott 14:03, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, and OK, dear theresa knott, I did just that. I only forgot to tell how much I like your personal page, especially that superb injunction for one particular Wikiholic or otherwise assiduous visitor : ) Sincerely yours, irismeister 15:52, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC)
The picture is far too big. Pictures should be 300 pix wide, you can link to a larger version if you wish. Secretlondon 16:03, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
- I thought that too, only I have no idea how to fix it. It's also pixilated. Fabiform 16:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think that this article needs to be seriously restructured. At the moment it isn't written from a neutral point of view. I am adding the NPOV message.
The tone of the article is frequently defensive, or accusatory.
For example the introduction should clearly state what iridology is (or claims to be) and then mention that its validity is disputed. Follow this with a positive section on iridology, it's history, how widespread it is. Then discuss how iridology is perceived by the world (positive and negative) and present a detailed but calm section noting the criticisms leveled at iridology. If necessary for clarity, a short rebutal could follow.
What does everyone else think? Fabiform 16:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- You're right - it's a semi-literate mess. I've thrown out large chunks of it. It would be great to see some details about how iriology proponents say it works, rather than just "medicine is bad" rants. DavidWBrooks 16:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
My dear fellow Wikipedians, DavidWBrooks, Fabiform, Secretlondon
Here is our common problem:
semi-literate mess. I've thrown out large chunks of it If this is a semi-literate mess, use a mirror before scissors: If you are really competent in writing this article (or only reading it, I'm afraid : ) why don't YOU write it as, let' just say less off a mess, DavidWBrooks My friend, there ought to be a law in Wiki against incompetence in cutters, directors and redirectors : ) Consider this: I, for one, never throw out large chunks of anything before I care to look into it. So, as a seasoned Wiki author, look what I'll do: I'll throw out all chunks of it and let you write it better...
I think that this article needs to be seriously restructured. Bravo ! Good for you ! So you do think ! Then please do not refrain from thinking on, Fabiform : )
The tone of the article is frequently defensive, or accusatory. Really ? And what is your tone, pal ? Fabiform ?
For example the introduction should clearly state what iridology is (or claims to be) and then mention that its validity is disputed.
- 01. Do you read what is cut ?
- 02. Do you realize that that was actually what was cut, Fabiform ?
Then discuss how iridology is perceived by the world Discuss, my friend, discuss. It already helps anybody see here how it is perceived by the world...: )
Follow this with a positive section on iridology, it's history, how widespread it is. Great! Nice thinking! Good progress! Again, only trouble is that that was exactly what you seem to endorse as the largest chunk thrown out so far : )
a detailed but calm section noting the criticisms leveled at iridology. If necessary for clarity, a short rebutal could follow. And where on Mare serenitatis were you, Fabiform; when someone just cut the right version ?
At the moment it isn't written from a neutral point of view. I beg your pardon ? Could you just use your judgement before scissors and kindly re-read about POV?
everyone else How about that poor old crank, the author of the article you think you think of ?
it's a semi-literate mess Nooo, it's much worse, my iriology fella : ) Only it has arguments. Culture, style, competence. Professionalism. Experience. Good will. Lack of arrogance. An active, positive attitude vs. hunting ignorance rather than ignorants. Balance... and even patience :) It's part of the job description for any medical doctor, you know ? Please check under the Hippocrati de grege porcus section for more details, here : )
bad" rants. Rants or facts ? Do you know the Difference ? Can you look under what you click for more than a split second ?
Let me get it straight: Are you saying that you are ready to die for an endorsed drug you take and then is withdrawn by the FDA? Read the USA Today article, ranty! Get the facts, facty ! And you may use more of your own judgement, even if tax dollars let others do the thinking for you ! People only get the medicine they deserve. Capisci, DavidWBrooks ?
It seems to me that the problem with you, dear friend, is that you fail to understand that network authoring is meant to stimulate authoring, creativity, search of truth, before trigger-happy scissors, used even before you allowed yourself the chance to finish to read the material about what you think you think. If you understand that I might retire all my contributions to Wiki as a result of this failure, probably you also realize ware are having a problem qualifying for independent advice.
Although I do not currently offer non-paid advice, I can see, in a bona fide attitude, under the proper section of the Good Samaritan Actthat there are some immediate workarounds:
- 01a. Get an education, DavidWBrooks, or alternatively,
- 01b. Help Wikipedia grow rather than undergo censorship!
- 02. Read more !
- 03. Try to understand what you read !
- 04. Repeat the process, (steps 01 through 04) q. s. (Latin short form for as needed - to save you a click).
There also is this case about why should I lose more time to teach, explain, train and nurse friends like you who have something more creative to do with their scissors than learning. To say nothing about their keyboards. But I will just not consider it for the moment : )
In conclusion, please:
01. Feel free to use the good old polite habit to let people FINISH their own articles before you step in, and cut!
02. ARGUE whatever you have to say or do, DOCUMENT your acts, and use COMPETENCE and PROFESSIONALISM before scissors !
03. RESTORE my article, or get an education (goto step 1a above).
I might as well pack all my articles and withdraw from the company of such friends. With you as friends, people, who needs free speech ? I can almost hear the perfect post-modern injunction: Youre either witthe usss orr aggainst usss... How about you ? You are ? : )
Enough is enough !
Look what, fellows: Either you restore the article or wave my Wikipedian career BYE, period. How is that for a better new start ? For my friends, are you really competent enough for cutting ? If yes, then how competent ? What are your track records ? What makes you so trigger-happy in cutting my stuff ? I, for one, am only a medical doctor with two postdoctoral degrees. You know, having published several dozen peer-reviewed titles ? I still learn. But seeing someone grab knowledge from legitimate authors, pump it in a septic tank for sewage, and then academically disserting about pixilated stuff is just beyond patience, Secretlondon. Ignorance is a poor excuse for anything ! It rapidly becomes a matter of trust and patient-doctor relationship : )
Sincerely yours, irismeister 17:47, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC) Please, let my answer be finished before you cut it : )
- Please do put in details from your experience and knowledge - that would be great. Remember, this isn't an article about whether profit-motive-based medicine works; it's an article about iridology! But don't expect people to leave an article untouched until you decide you're finished - that's not the way Wikipedia works. We've all had our own Wikipedia words altered by others, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad, and it's annoying ... but that's wiki life. If we want our articles to remain pristine, we can put them on different Web sites. (I apologize for the 'semi-literate' crack, which was inaccurate - I was typing before I had enough coffee) - DavidWBrooks 18:10, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Irismeister, I am about to revert to the last edit and replace the NPOV message. If you read it, it states that the neutrality of the article is under dispute. It doesn't say that you're wrong and I'm right. Please leave it there so other people can come and join the discussion. I haven't waited for you to "finish" "your" article because all articles on wikipedia are a work in progress (they are never finished!) and no article belongs to one person or one group of people. :) Fabiform 16:28, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- And please, from those who are knowledgeable, how about some details of how iridology is supposed to work - e.g., the appearance/disappearance of white lines, etc.? Details are good! (I apologize for the 'semi-literate' crack - typing before I had enough coffee) DavidWBrooks 16:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, and I'm sure irismaster will correct me if I'm wrong. Iridology is supposed to be able to diagnose health complaints from the appearence of lines or flecks in specific portions of the iris. The fine white lines are supposed to be indicative of healing in that part of the body. According to the quackwatch's article on Iridology] it has been tested and been found to be useless as a diagnostic tool. theresa knott 17:31, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This needs much more detail about how practitioners believe it works. Secretlondon 18:15, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
... apologize for the 'semi-literate' crack, which was inaccurate...
You are wrong now : ) It was very accurate to start with : ) And ah, that's quite all right ! Thanks anyway, but I'm not important. Ideas are ! In the right receptor, with the right signal/noise ratio, they are great life-savers : )
... don't expect people to leave an article untouched until you decide you're finished....
Surely not ! I'm never finished : ) (no pun intented : ) It's really only about letting me finish the sentence. Just have a look at the time stamps in the page history !
This needs much more detail about how practitioners believe it works...
That's perfectly true, dear Secretlondon! Now we talk business! Practitioners may believe anything though. The important thing is how this belief could help them help everybody else. For this, they enjoy a thing called peer review - a sort of common endorsement, or network editing if you prefer, that existed before Wiki was born : )
Please do put in details from your experience and knowledge - that would be great...
A great POV you mean ? (LOL - Classical Latin for Loughing Out Loud :) Seriously, thank you for the confidence ! It makes me endeavor to do a better job:
how iridology is supposed to work - e.g., the appearance/disappearance of white lines, etc.? Details are good!
Look, the iris pattern changes. Health changes. There is a trick called homeostasy which great American physiologist Walter B Cannon dubbed as wisdom of the body . This helps things that change to... remain basically the same or at least not to affect vital vertebrate function. The iris is part of it. It so happens that your flecks and whatever (in fact it's only a pattern of iris stromal transparencies) act as signal and input a subsystem of homeostasy. But hey, what am I doing here ? You trapped me into a lecture. Read my books, or only my graduation thesis first, as a primer : )
... this isn't an article about whether profit-motive-based medicine works...
Touché, dear DavidWBrooks and concedo (Classical Latin for I agreee - with an excuse-me, please ! connotation... :) However, iridology (which has its own cranks and for-profit performers, I could not agreee more) happens to illustrate how we can repress legitimate research even before we do research, in order to have research-based arguments for rejection. You see the lack of virtuous cycle ? That's why, for the last twenty years I was mainly into iridology practiced by medical doctors only. It worked ! It's just that medical doctors are so expensive these days... All of which gets us all back to square one : )
Please leave it there so other people can come and join the discussion...
I definitely will, dear Fabiform ! But I will also restore the skin and bones of my previous thinking under that hangman's stuff :)
... it has been tested and been found to be useless...
That's correct, dear theresa knott. There have been a grand total of six, repeat SIX clinical studies about iridology in the last 39 years, since Medline puts everything on record. They have the flaw index and the IGOG (input garbage output garbage) factor well beyond the mean. Two do not even enter discussion, being only paid-for ranting. The most important is that from Simon, Worthen and Mitas. It's a good study, well above the mean. It rejects one iridology claim with a computed level of confidence. It does not reject iridology. It takes more to reject it. Just think that the FDA sometimes goes into thousands of clinical tests over more than ten years just to accept a drug. But then again, that is well paid for. Bottomline: let us look into the IRIR factor (input research$, output results :)
While I take this opportunity to take a good deep breath (watch your caffeine levels, dear DavidWBrooks :) , please let me restore my stuff and let me please answer the other very interesting questions of you friends, in due time, with competence and respect!
One sick person at a time : )
Yours, sincerely, irismeister 20:35, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC)
If you restore what you wrote before, I imagine it will be removed and/or edited way down, since most of it had little to do with iridology, and all of it sounded like a defensive argument rather than an encyclopedia article. If, on the other hand, you write a good, crisp description of how iridologists work, it is very likely to survive (judging from my experience with wikipedia, where disputes like this are common) and will get applauded even by those who don't agree with its conclusions. - DavidWBrooks 21:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
OK, DavidWBrooks, I'm doing just that right now. Thank you again for patience. Most people have this habit of growing pets and then let them bark in the barnyard before the big garage sale : )
Yours, sincerely, irismeister 22:22, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see this discussion continue today. Hi again Irismeister. You certainly seem passionate about the subject of iridology. Hopefully over the next few days we can all work together to make a good solid article which we can all agree on. :)
Before I even look at the content of the article, I must say that I think it needs restructuring. Have a look at United States for example. This is a long and complex article which organises a lot of data on one page. Notice particularly that the Table Of Contents appears below the introduction, I think that would look good on this page too. We could have a clear introduction and definition of iridolody before we start having headings which cause the Table Of Contents to appear. Also, you will see that the Table of Contents is much smaller on the USA page. I think we need to better organise the sections on this page so that there is more of a hierarchy, they don't all need to be listed in the Table Of Contents, it makes it cluttered and doesn't give a good sense of how the article is divided up. Fabiform 23:33, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hi and my pleasure, dear Fabiform You oblige !
seem passionate
You mean obsessive-compulsive ? Just kidding :)
much smaller on the USA page
You are right in structuring issues as a whole. But USA compares with iridology like an eagle to a fly, even in Wiki terms : ) Aquila non capit muscas, he he :) I nevertheless did just that. As if we could have read our respective minds symmultaneously ! Since even iridologists can't do that... congratulations for the emulation, good sport spirit and passion you invoked ! Please have a look at the new structure. We'll talk again tomorrow, as you say.
Sincerely yours, irismeister 23:41, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC)
For other ideas, check out the article on reiki and the way it is written and structured. It's not perfect, but it's a good handle of a similar (well, similar-ish) topic. - DavidWBrooks 00:39, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Good link David! Fabiform 01:51, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Removing the following parts of the introduction: Iridology textually means logos and iris, or talking about the iris.
Iridology is hard to define, as this whole article stands proof. It is certainly and objectively a fast growing alternative medical branch.
The legitimate public concern about its value is not matched by current available information. It has unique potential as this is the only such discipline that currently has an official medical explanation in anatomical, physiological and epidemiological terms.
Most people and institutions involved in endorsement or rejection of iridology simply do not have the necessary qualifications to judge it. Wikipedians are invited to use reason and the following information and see for themselves whether or not iridology, like most other things, has a place under the sun. Fabiform 13:47, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
For other ideas,
"I paid for these ideas, Mr. DavidWGrooks!". Science is universal, like that pervading superior intelligence. Science is as beautiful as Woody Allen without the sense of humour. But as the Goedelian paradox of ubiquity has it, we all believe in a superior intelligence pervading the Universe except for some parts of New Hampshire. Given your help, I have become, just like yourself, a little bit skeptical about advance of knowledge using old cranks like me for Wiki. So how about these ideas in lieu of others for a good start : ) Sure, checked them, and they look iridologish enough for me ! But I have already done that, as well as reading a few hundred other related articles including dozens of USA- and reiki-related. What I have not done yet is to get your real world, sleeves-dirty help into this very talk page. Why are you so sure, dear DavidWBrooks friend, that I may use the reiki page structure before the iridology page content ? Do you really feel it fit, dear Fabiform to carry on your Good link David! conversation on iridology talk pages rather than good link or raiki talk pages for that matter ? Why are you so normative, dear DavidWBrooks and Fabiform friends, before being co-operative ?
it's a good handle
I have a better one, especially since some people seem to never be able to understand the authoring process - the For dummies network authoring miniseries
For dummies network authoring miniseries part one of ten : Focus
Hello, and welcome to For dummies network authoring miniseries part one of ten. I'm irismeister - the author of most of iris-related, PION-related, you-name-it-related articles in Wiki. I will share with you some of my 30-year-strong experience in the subject, as well as a number of others, including authoring, editing, directing, redirecting and exemplifying. To focus on really new stuff you don't understand, is not self-evident. By the end of this part, you'll be able to focus to real-world questions and answers. The salient point here is perform lateral thinking whenever you can't add anything new. Direct, and redirect, cut and counsel authors of something you have to learn about. Be generous. Polite. Cool things down. Wait and see. Honey brings more bees. It's amazing what a little bit of kindness can do to your ignorance! It dresses things up. You can always redirect, cut and generously counsel the base of the pyramid once you climb on other's shoulders and reach the focussing point. If you don't get an immediate operational grasp of the focussing point idea, remember the golden standard of consulting: You look at your client's wristwatch, audit the time, tell him the result of your reading, and charge him for the process. We call this focus.
For dummies network authoring miniseries part two of ten : Mirror
Hello, and welcome to For dummies network authoring miniseries part two of ten. For presentations, go to part one above. By the end of this part, you'll be able to work co-operatively. To work co-operatively is not self-evident, like the ancient, pre-Wiki constitutional hold this ... that all men are created equal and stuff. Some of us are only authors, others are created editors, mainly for stuff they don't understand. This is the essence of adhocracy, kleptocracy, kakocracy and all recent developments of west and the rest democracies. The salient point in this part is the process of using a mirror. Try to put yourself into the author's skin when you re-author what he knows better than you. I'ts amazing what a little mirror can do to you!
Removing the following parts Thank you for your patience and active co-operation, and please feel free to study parts one and two above at your leisure. Before you jump to any conclusion and ask for your question time, please wait for parts three through ten. In the mean time you may browse the relevant sections of an exhaustive for-dummies series on focus and mirror here for more details. If you feel they may apply to the intersting Talk:Iridology contributions you made, please bear with me that it's only a work in progress... Thank you again, and see you soon : ) Sincerely yours, irismeister 13:57, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)
Hello irismeister.
What do you think of the introduction I wrote? Do you think it's fair and balanced? I welcome everyone's comments.... Fabiform 14:30, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think the photo caption needs changing. It currently reads "The iris is the only living tissue of chordates always visible naturally, with eyes wide open" Why are we talking about chordates which is a broad term including things like dinosaurs as well as humans? Iridology is used on humans, so it seems to be complicating the issue. Chordates is also a needlessly technical term. Fabiform 15:04, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I think there are far too many needlessly technical terms in this article. I am reminded of adverts for cosmetics "This face cream uses bio hyrated pro vitamins delivered through micro granuals" sounds scientific so it must make me look 21 again right! or astrology " The moon is in the first quarter whilst jupiter is on the horizon as the sun enters aquarius. This means you'll be lucky in love. If saturn we on the horizon you'd be lucky in buisiness" Yeah right! Let's keep things simple. Technobabble out plain speaking in. theresa knott 15:30, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Fabiform : )
Hello again, all my fellow Wikipedians, and welcome back : ) How's your day ? Thank you for finally getting your sleeves dirty. It's a good start! By the end of this -------- you'll be able to understand what youwrite about. I(m proud of you, my friends ! The old weird crank goes on with technobabble. And has not got out his psychobabble out yet ; )
needlessly technical term
Who needs culture, my dear Fabiform ? We have this needless thing called culture when we can earn the day cutting through needlessly technical term. OK, so you put a caption. Which animals have irides, my friend ? Which don't have them? Do you need to say precise things about dinosaurs or let readers more competent than you believe that worms and crooks have irides too ? Get an education or go back to manufacture me a link to Pupular Mechanics and the world famous New Hampshire Science Monitor instead !
micro granuals Rubbish. You confound encyclopedias and marketing. In encyclopedias, including Wiki, there is they cycl- thing whereby you can go and see for yourself if a word is needed or not. If you want to make a cream out of the article you milked from me, feel free : )
technique
Technique is restrictive. Discipline is systematic. Iridology is not only a technique. It's an alternative medical system. It has a specific theory of health and disease, a correspong diagnostic technique, and a corresponding (granted, experimental only) set of specific trans-iridial light therapies (TILT).
alternative health
What's your alternative to health, dummy ? Dis-ease. Repeat. Only alternative medicine qualifies. Study the difference!
colored part
So the sclera and the conjunctiva are not colored. Per Christum, why do I lose my time with sixth-graders ? Go back to cutting stuff for a change, authoring is complicated even in its network flavor ! Grrr !
Iridology is currently more popular in Europe than the USA
Who cares about that ? English is spoken by ten to twenty times more people than USAns. And what do you know about Europe anyway ? Could you tell the difference between Slovenia, Slovakia and Slavonia ? Let alone the status of iridology there...
Involving and involved
Study the difference! English is not yet an ergative, agglutinative language : )
It has its origins in the work of Hungarian physician Ignatz von Péczely (1826 - 1891) and is still practiced today.
Rubbish ! You don't read what you cut, edit and introduct ! Repeat after me: se-ven-teen-th ceeen-tu--ry attested. And what about Plato, Abaris ? Oh, forget it. Go back to scissors - you are much better there : )
It has evolved from many centuries of study of the anatomy of the human eye
Rubbish ! Get an education ! How do you know that my friend ? What are your documents, facts, references for such an allegation ? Or you just think this is true ? If so, are you trying to lead us all into your POVs now ?
its key theories
What on Earth are you talking about ? Do you know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis ? If so, what is this key stuff ?
Iridology is viewed with skepticism by the medical community
Wake up friend ! Where do you think I come from ? Now you put me outside the medical community! Good for you, I will attend to any patient, especially to the annoying, stupid, challenging, difficult, offensive - according to Hippocrates and Maimonides but I fear I'd rather not be member of the club who accepts me as a member : ) If you bring me back there, do I look skeptical to you ? If not, cut the blah-blah, and issue a good old simple NPOV - if possible non-absolutist, non-abolitionist, pro-choice statement - about this elusive concept of yours !
Physicians dispute the claim that the human organ of sight is also capable of reflecting the health of every major bodily system.
Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish - offensive racist discriminatory white-supremacist blah-blah. You are into introduction, dear friend, not into restrictive thinking. How about pig's organ of sight ? How about equine iridology ? And what is this also thing ? Don't you remember anatomy - the section about parts reflecting the whole ? OK, forget it - get an education ! Or only read the following for-dummies anatomical primer part one of one thousand: It's not dead skin and bones, dummy, or some hologram, it's a work of art. If you dispute the claim, leave the physicians alone with their own sub-urban culture thrive on their own ignorance. They can talk for themselves if they get a chance, giving this pullulation of rasing young promising new Wiki editors : )
A more general observation
A medical system, branch, specialty or approach is far from technique, or you don't conceptualize enough the difference between culture per se and technoanimism. Do you ? If not, here is a modest primer's primer: My dear friend, the USA portion of the North American Continent is neither orphan nor lost in the Universe, although some legitimately elected people there willingly make a lot of orphans on a daily basis. There are alternative concepts, thinking processi, paradigms, cultures and even ideas about NPOV!!!!! Think different ! Think deeper ! Think larger, if you prefer, but by Jove, Hyge and Panachaia, extract yourself from the surface background you indulge in, and take a 3-D approach to understanding. Think together with people and digest the concepts that formed your understanding. Do not think above them, or through them. This is not obvious, I know. Bear with me that nothing ever is fixed in the knowledge scenery, including the current Anglo-Saxon-centered education and that our first mistake is to take new stuff as an extension of old stuff we can rely on. Everybody is a reactionary in the field he knows best : )
Consensus-seeking Conclusion
All in all, not bad for a start! Beginner's luck : )
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments