text:
Consilience

In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will probably not be a strong scientific consensus.

The principle is based on unity of knowledge; measuring the same result by several different methods should lead to the same answer. For example, it should not matter whether one measures distances within the Giza pyramid complex by laser rangefinding, by satellite imaging, or with a meter stick – in all three cases, the answer should be approximately the same. For the same reason, different dating methods in geochronology should concur, a result in chemistry should not contradict a result in geology, etc.

The word consilience was originally coined as the phrase "consilience of inductions" by William Whewell (consilience refers to a "jumping together" of knowledge). The word comes from Latin com- "together" and -siliens "jumping" (as in resilience).

Description
Consilience requires the use of independent methods of measurement, meaning that the methods have few shared characteristics. That is, the mechanism by which the measurement is made is different; each method is dependent on an unrelated natural phenomenon. For example, the accuracy of laser range-finding measurements is based on the scientific understanding of lasers, while satellite pictures and meter (yard-)sticks rely on different phenomena. Because the methods are independent, when one of several methods is in error, it is very unlikely to be in error in the same way as any of the other methods, and a difference between the measurements will be observed. If the scientific understanding of the properties of lasers was inaccurate, then the laser measurement would be inaccurate but the others would not.

As a result, when several different methods agree, this is strong evidence that none of the methods are in error and the conclusion is correct. This is because of a greatly reduced likelihood of errors: for a consensus estimate from multiple measurements to be wrong, the errors would have to be similar for all samples and all methods of measurement, which is extremely unlikely. Random errors will tend to cancel out as more measurements are made, due to regression to the mean; systematic errors will be detected by differences between the measurements and will also tend to cancel out since the direction of the error will still be random. This is how scientific theories reach high confidence—over time, they build up a large degree of evidence which converges on the same conclusion.

When results from different strong methods do appear to conflict, this is treated as a serious problem to be reconciled. For example, in the 19th century, the Sun appeared to be no more than 20 million years old, but the Earth appeared to be no less than 300 million years (resolved by the discovery of nuclear fusion and radioactivity, and the theory of quantum mechanics); or current attempts to resolve theoretical differences between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Significance
Because of consilience, the strength of evidence for any particular conclusion is related to how many independent methods are supporting the conclusion, as well as how different these methods are. Those techniques with the fewest (or no) shared characteristics provide the strongest consilience and result in the strongest conclusions. This also means that confidence is usually strongest when considering evidence from different fields because the techniques are usually very different.

For example, the theory of evolution is supported by a convergence of evidence from genetics, molecular biology, paleontology, geology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and many other fields. In fact, the evidence within each of these fields is itself a convergence providing evidence for the theory. As a result, to disprove evolution, most or all of these independent lines of evidence would have to be found to be in error. The strength of the evidence, considered together as a whole, results in the strong scientific consensus that the theory is correct. In a similar way, evidence about the history of the universe is drawn from astronomy, astrophysics, planetary geology, and physics.

Finding similar conclusions from multiple independent methods is also evidence for the reliability of the methods themselves, because consilience eliminates the possibility of all potential errors that do not affect all the methods equally. This is also used for the validation of new techniques through comparison with the consilient ones. If only partial consilience is observed, this allows for the detection of errors in methodology; any weaknesses in one technique can be compensated for by the strengths of the others. Alternatively, if using more than one or two techniques for every experiment is infeasible, some of the benefits of consilience may still be obtained if it is well-established that these techniques usually give the same result.

Consilience is important across all of science, including the social sciences, and is often used as an argument for scientific realism by philosophers of science. Each branch of science studies a subset of reality that depends on factors studied in other branches. Atomic physics underlies the workings of chemistry, which studies emergent properties that in turn are the basis of biology. Psychology is not separate from the study of properties emergent from the interaction of neurons and synapses. Sociology, economics, and anthropology are each, in turn, studies of properties emergent from the interaction of countless individual humans. The concept that all the different areas of research are studying one real, existing universe is an apparent explanation of why scientific knowledge determined in one field of inquiry has often helped in understanding other fields.

Deviations
Consilience does not forbid deviations: in fact, since not all experiments are perfect, some deviations from established knowledge are expected. However, when the convergence is strong enough, then new evidence inconsistent with the previous conclusion is not usually enough to outweigh that convergence. Without an equally strong convergence on the new result, the weight of evidence will still favor the established result. This means that the new evidence is most likely to be wrong.

Science denialism (for example, AIDS denialism) is often based on a misunderstanding of this property of consilience. A denier may promote small gaps not yet accounted for by the consilient evidence, or small amounts of evidence contradicting a conclusion without accounting for the pre-existing strength resulting from consilience. More generally, to insist that all evidence converge precisely with no deviations would be naïve falsificationism, equivalent to considering a single contrary result to falsify a theory when another explanation, such as equipment malfunction or misinterpretation of results, is much more likely.

In history
Historical evidence also converges in an analogous way. For example: if five ancient historians, none of whom knew each other, all claim that Julius Caesar seized power in Rome in 49 BCE, this is strong evidence in favor of that event occurring even if each individual historian is only partially reliable. By contrast, if the same historian had made the same claim five times in five different places (and no other types of evidence were available), the claim is much weaker because it originates from a single source. The evidence from the ancient historians could also converge with evidence from other fields, such as archaeology: for example, evidence that many senators fled Rome at the time, that the battles of Caesar’s civil war occurred, and so forth.

Consilience has also been discussed in reference to Holocaust denial. "'We [have now discussed] eighteen proofs all converging on one conclusion...the deniers shift the burden of proof to historians by demanding that each piece of evidence, independently and without corroboration between them, prove the Holocaust. Yet no historian has ever claimed that one piece of evidence proves the Holocaust. We must examine the collective whole.'"

That is, individually the evidence may underdetermine the conclusion, but together they overdetermine it. A similar way to state this is that to ask for one particular piece of evidence in favor of a conclusion is a flawed question.

Outside the sciences
In addition to the sciences, consilience can be important to the arts, ethics and religion. Both artists and scientists have identified the importance of biology in the process of artistic innovation.

History of the concept
Consilience has its roots in the ancient Greek concept of an intrinsic orderliness that governs our cosmos, inherently comprehensible by logical process, a vision at odds with mystical views in many cultures that surrounded the Hellenes. The rational view was recovered during the high Middle Ages, separated from theology during the Renaissance and found its apogee in the Age of Enlightenment.

Whewell's definition was that: "The Consilience of Inductions takes place when an Induction, obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction obtained from another different class. Thus Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs."

More recent descriptions include: ""Where there is a convergence of evidence, where the same explanation is implied, there is increased confidence in the explanation. Where there is divergence, then either the explanation is at fault or one or more of the sources of information is in error or requires reinterpretation.""

""Proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.""

Edward O. Wilson
Although the concept of consilience in Whewell's sense was widely discussed by philosophers of science, the term was unfamiliar to the broader public until the end of the 20th century, when it was revived in Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, a 1998 book by the author and biologist E. O. Wilson, as an attempt to bridge the cultural gap between the sciences and the humanities that was the subject of C. P. Snow's The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (1959). Wilson believed that "the humanities, ranging from philosophy and history to moral reasoning, comparative religion, and interpretation of the arts, will draw closer to the sciences and partly fuse with them" with the result that science and the scientific method, from within this fusion, would not only explain the physical phenomenon but also provide moral guidance and be the ultimate source of all truths.

Wilson held that with the rise of the modern sciences, the sense of unity gradually was lost in the increasing fragmentation and specialization of knowledge in the last two centuries. He asserted that the sciences, humanities, and arts have a common goal: to give a purpose to understand the details, to lend to all inquirers "a conviction, far deeper than a mere working proposition, that the world is orderly and can be explained by a small number of natural laws." An important point made by Wilson is that hereditary human nature and evolution itself profoundly affect the evolution of culture, in essence, a sociobiological concept. Wilson's concept is a much broader notion of consilience than that of Whewell, who was merely pointing out that generalizations invented to account for one set of phenomena often account for others as well.

A parallel view lies in the term universology, which literally means "the science of the universe." Universology was first promoted for the study of the interconnecting principles and truths of all domains of knowledge by Stephen Pearl Andrews, a 19th-century utopian futurist and anarchist.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Consilience


text:
Talk:Consilience

Election Theory
The term from election theory should presumably be put on a separate page from the term in philosophy of science, with a disambiguation page if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.142.91 (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone up for it or are we all too lazy? Wiki-BT (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both these comments - it should be separated out - User:Maven111 212.84.114.242 (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The note on Recent Changes said "see talk"; the page had a link "/talk" which led nowhere; I changed it to "/Talk" which also led nowhere. If someone had something to say, it didn't take; please try again.

Someone wrote: "Since the scientific method is the one proven method by which mankind has been able to decipher reality? on any consistent basis, only "Inductions" which arise out of applications of the scientific method can be accepted as vaild indicators of consilience."

I'm really sorry that I had to delete this, because I think if written in a less inflammatory and patently false way, it might have provided useful information; as it is I am not sure how to re-write it. The scientific method is only "the one proven method by which mankind has been able to decipher reality" from a point of view which deifies science. Let me take the statement in chunks: "[T]he scientific methos is the one proven method..." Proven how? I'd like to see you indicate to me, in a way which does not make use of the scientific method, that the scientific method holds this exalted status. All the scientific method does is provide self-consistent results.

"...method by which mankind has been able to decipher reality..." "decipher reality?" What does that mean? Again, how do we know what "reality" is, outside of what the scientific method tells us? Don't get me wrong... I approve of the so-called "scientific method," even though I think the term is assinine, because the scientific approach is not so easily describable as the people who use that term would like. Heck, I make my living doing science. But when "Science" is deified like this, it really sets my blood aboil. --Alex Kennedy

Sorry to have set your blood aboil, Alex. That certainly was not my intent. Being relatively new at this, it's not easy for me to compose directly onto the "Editing" page, particularly in light of the fact that I'm not a scientist, per se, being more of a writer with eclectic tastes. I tried a re-write. Please review it to see if it makes better sense to you, and that it doesn't "deify" science, which also was not intentional.

Using ignorance as an excuse, I don't understand this: "The note on Recent Changes said "see talk"; the page had a link "/talk" which led nowhere; I changed it to "/Talk" which also led nowhere.  If someone had something to say, it didn't take; please try again." Can you explain this in terms a neophyte can understand? :)

Well, a couple of things : first, sorry to say my blood was aboil - your edit more than satisfied me. Second, I was still writing what you see above when you checked /talk... hence you saw nothing - I hadn't submitted yet :P Don't think my giant uncontrollable wrath characterises the Wikipedia, please. --Alex Kennedy

LOL! I hardly think your "wrath" as you put it was either "giant" or "uncontrollable." Glad you liked the rewrite, and also glad to make your acquaintence! F. Lee Horn

Consilience, "Universology" and "reductionism"
To say that they are equivalents is less than useful. This entry needs to separate the two concepts, clarifying each in the process. --Wetman 07:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "...And in this way consilience is very similar to reductionism." the article tells us. This isn't true, and in this abbreviated formula it can't be very useful. --Wetman 05:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Unattributed quotations
The eight long quotations at the end should have their source(s) indicated please. Dirac66 22:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, with Google the ones I found are from Wilson's book. Dirac66 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of quotations from the book
I removed the following mass of text from the main article (Consilience) because it's just too unbalancing to the rest of the article and, while it's a simulating reading, it needs more paraphrasing and introductory prose. Even if these eight paragraphs were (and possibly are) in the article about the book (Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge), I'm not sure they're entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. In that case, I'll put them in a "Quotations" section of the article about the book instead of this talk page and see what discussion follows. Xaxafrad 04:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Consilience Journal - remove?
It looks like a vanity section. It's got nothing to do with the topic apart from the title. Should it go?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

is there a root or is everything a branch?
"each branch of knowledge studies a subset of reality that depends on factors studied in other branches" does this apply to atomic physics as well?217.232.225.3 (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You could say that the observational side of atomic physics heavily depends on "lab-scale" physics being in good order, so in the final brew, from an evidentiary point of view they depend on each other. But of course from the theoretical or axiomatic side, you are completely right, the small implies the large, but doesn't need it to be logically complete on its own. That is the principle of reductionism. 89.217.22.3 (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't find refs for the term "consilience" in elections
I've had a quick skim of Google and Google Scholar and can't find anything showing "consilience" as a jargon term in election counting, anywhere. Something like the concept, certainly, but nothing suggesting the word is a term in the field. Anyone else? This section needs citing or removal - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Removed for now. Feel free to restore if a decent reference to it as a jargon term can actually be found - David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead examples
I seem to recall that continental drift/plate tectonics was finally accepted by the scientific community due to consilience. This might be a good example to add to the lead. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I thought it was because, of all the theories, it was the only one that they finally came up with a mechanism for (subduction). Which then checked out as pretty much correct in all sorts of ways - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Status of Consilience as a Theory
Is consilience an assumption, a hypothesis, an inductive conjecture, a theory, or a basic foundation of the universe? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 * It's a principle of evidence or of rational thought, especially in complex situations where many pieces of evidence or even multiple fields of inquiry come together. I don't think it's precise enough or contentful enough to be an axiom, a theory, or a criterion. It's more a pattern description or rational reconstruction (normative reconstruction) of the way we think.

 * To my ears it has a smoothly pompous Latin sound, linguistically evoking sympathetic magic or synodical harmonization, but that's just me. 89.217.22.3 (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

reliable sources
this can probably be used as a reference. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone please provide sources for this?
The intro looks great, but is lacking sources. Particularly, does anyone know a good source for this statement: Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.

If you could add sources, I would be very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovmiester (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the page sound?
Consilience is mostly used to refer to approaches to interdisciplinary research. The page now refers to this level but also and very often to much more common experimental approaches within the same discipline (e.g., measures of independent variables, measurement of different physical dimensions of the same physical phenomenon). The definition needs a review IMHO. Tytire (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Consilience


text:
Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine

The lede needs to be revised
Hi everyone. I was searching about Traditional Chinese Medicine today and saw this very negatively worded description about TCM. The lede does not give a proper introduction to TCM and is backed up by an article that has only an impact factor of 1.17, which is quite low and most definitely cannot reflect the mainstream opinion. I made a change to the first paragraph to a more comprehensive and neutral description, and later it got reverted by a user because they think that my change is non-neutral, which is ridiculous. I was told later that we need reliable sources to back up a neutral description. Please respond with reliable sources so we can try to make a change.

It is worth noticing that many other traditional medicine branches like "traditional Japanese medicine", "traditional Korean medicine", "Ayurveda" (which is alternative medicine in India), etc all have very neutral descriptions, and some of these branches even are derived from Chinese medicine. If their lede can stay neutral, then the TCM lede should stay neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuangyanLi (talk • contribs) 03:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Have you got any policy based reasons to revise the lead? We appear to be following WP:LEAD and your contribution of unsupported commentary was rightfully reverted- Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 06:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated in the "Intro revision" section, current reference 2 which is the Nature editorial is more suitable as a statement attributed to that particular editor, but not necessarily as statements of fact. Therefore, it can be misleading to place such statement as the very first sentence of the entire page, which is seen directly by anyone who Google searches "Traditional Chinese Medicine".
 * In addition, regarding your comment also in the "Intro revision" section, what evidence are you using to support the statement that "the most important thing about TCM is that it doesn't work"? GavinXLu (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been described as, already in the article, is enough of an attribution. The level of acceptance from the scientific mainstream is extremely relevant context for the reader and should be at the top of the article. What google decides to put on their website is none of our business. MrOllie (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, The cited Nature editorial "Hard to swallow"  has no citations/evidence of what it is saying, which is simply an opinion piece rather than a scientific article with evidence. It cannot represent the mainstream just because it's Nature. There are many more reliable secondary scientific articles about TCM that suggest its effectiveness. I really suggest you and a few other active reverters on the TCM article to investigate more into TCM before saying it is "pseudoscience". I can help you to get started here: "Traditional chinese medicine: an update on clinical evidence", "Understanding Traditional Chinese Medicine Therapeutics: An Overview of the Basics and Clinical Applications" GuangyanLi (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess we all need to investigate more into TCM until we agree with you, otherwise it is still not enough. "You do not know enough to judge this" is a common pro-pseudoscience talking point, also used by astrologers and homeopaths.
 * Actually, you have no idea how much we know about the TCM evidence. Maybe we know more than you do?
 * Back to article work: The Nature article is clearly marked as an editorial, and although it is used several times, what it is used for in the article is either uncontroversial (such as "TCM uses artemisia") or it has another, non-editorial source, or the statement is attributed.
 * We have loads of sources saying that TCM is full of pseudoscience, spread over the whole of the article. Denying that it is not would be silly; literature about pseudoscience regularly features concepts from TCM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this what Wiki is? Wow. A bunch of uninform people with no credential on the subject matter dictating on a topic that they have no credential on what-so-ever.  Very disappointing.  I will refrain from using Wiki from now on. K2wong (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said avbove, We have loads of sources saying that TCM is full of pseudoscience. It is not our doing, it is the scientific consensus. You are not listening. But of course, not listening to things you disagree with is a precondition for belief in pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it really accurate to define TCM as an alternative medicine practice in a Western sense? The worldview of TCM is not historically an alternate, pseudoscientific version of Western medicine. It has been practiced for thousands of years, and it is based on a different understanding of reality. Wouldn’t it be appropriate to provide a leading context as to the historical and spiritually-influenced basis of these beliefs? To lead with pseudoscience in the description of TCM is inappropriate. An opening section similar to ‘Tai chi’ or ‘Qigong’ - both highly related facets of TCM, would be more appropriate. See also the opening to ‘Kampo’ on Wikipedia, which is the Japanese adaptation of TCM. I find it bizarre that the spiritually-infused healing art of TCM, practiced by millions worldwide, would fall under the umbrella of a Western “alternative medicine” pseudoscience on Wikipedia. This seems a bit dismissive and xenophobic. 216.59.168.223 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Ayurveda is treated the same way. I think "pseudoscientific" is maybe the wrong word, but the idea that TCM has no scientific basis needs to be emphasised for WP:FRINGE reasons. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood re: fringe theory reasons, still seems that “pseudoscientific” is an inappropriate label for Traditional Chinese Medicine (and Ayurveda, for that matter). “No scientific basis” is different than pseudoscience, when it comes to beliefs w/ a different spiritual understanding of reality. Also consider “Qi”, Yin and yang”, and “Wuxing” articles— here is the same underlying Chinese philosophy that is deeply connected with TCM principles, yet presented here with a neutrality not found on “Traditional Chinese Medicine” or “Acupuncture” articles. I understand that the umbrella of medicine requires protection from fringe theories / dangerous beliefs, but clearly this isn’t simple “quackery” or snake oil… judging by the wealth of Wikipedia articles related to the underlying TCM philosophy & principles. 216.59.168.223 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The difference is that 'Yin and yang' and 'Wuxing' are not presented as medical treatments or supported by sham 'scientific' papers. The context is different so the result is different - in particular, the best-available sources treat them differently, and Wikipedia follows that, as the site's content policies require. That's really all we do here - WP:NPOV means follow the viewpoint of the mainstream sources. We don't pick apart the definitions of terms like "pseudoscientific" ourselves to decide if the sources are correct or not, that is WP:NOR and WP:NOTFORUM territory, and is considered a misuse of the talk pages. MrOllie (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * “Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is an alternative medical practice drawn from traditional medicine in China.” So this article is specifically about the Western practice of TCM? In this article (in the Critique section) there is a distinction between “TCM” and “ medicine in traditional China.” Maybe the issue is, rather, that two topics are both being represented by one article. “Medicine in China” is a somewhat weak article about modern medicine in China. Nevertheless, apologies- did not intend to misuse the Talk page. 216.59.168.223 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So this article is specifically about the Western practice of TCM? No, it is about TCM as promoted by Chinese dictators since Mao, which is also practiced outside China. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought the article was from Nature, which has an impact factor of 69.5. But if what you said is true then yes 1.17 is quite bad. Even my friend got published in a publication with an impact factor of ~7. Alexysun (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thoughts re: moving the offending sentence to the "Critique" section? Seems like that is already the place for it. Biscuitfrank (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, we do as described at WP:LEDE. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chiming in, @Tgeorgescu. Per the original comment, the existing lede is inconsistent with the link you shared, i.e. "It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." What would you suggest to resolve this? Biscuitfrank (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. Keep in mind that on Wikipedia, neutral point of view is defined as representing views proportionately to the sources, not a false balance. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed - the existing lead is fine. No problem with wordsmithing, but there anything that needs removing or moving elsewhere. Girth Summit  (blether)  21:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2024
Add space between period after Act and They in Taiwan subsection of the Regulations section. Ret2pop (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Health Psychology
— Assignment last updated by FeliceRCLi (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation 6
Citation 6 leads to a porn site, I don't intend to be an editor but I figured I'd let someone know that for whatever reason the citation link is not functional GargantuanChungoid (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it as a dead link. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I searched for the title of the citation and relinked it to the original website. It should work now. FeliceRCLi (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can't read the text, but it looks fixed to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

TCM and Mental Health
I am working on adding a section on TCM and Mental Health, will upload it later this week. FeliceRCLi (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I think you already know that that requires extremely strong WP:MEDRS. E.g. sane homeopathists do not pretend to be able to treat mental illness. E.g. here is an argument from researchers who are not unfriendly to homeopathy.
 * If alt-med pretends to heal mental illness: run for your life. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 * User:FeliceRCLi/Traditional Chinese medicine does not look promising. If those weren't Ancient superstitions, we would believe it is present-day mystical delirium. And the assertion one can successfully treat anxiety and depression with acupuncture is gullible. Just because TCM practitioners pretend to treat mental illness, it does not mean it's a commendable idea. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This lead is false and misleading. Over 13,000 studies in 60 countries prove so.
There have actually been over 13,000 studies in 60 countries proving acupuncture is effective. Here are 30+ links to some of these studies. Not sure how your 2 references beat out 13,000+ References:

1. Ma Y, Dong M, Zhou K, et al. Publication Trends in Acupuncture Research: A 20-Year Bibliometric Analysis Based on PubMed. PLoS ONE 2016;11:e0168123. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168123

2. Hempel S, Taylor SL, Solloway MR, et al. Evidence Map of Acupuncture. Washington (DC): : Department of Veterans Affairs  2014.

3. The Acupuncture Evidence Project – A Comparative Literature Review 2017 – Acupuncture.org.au. 2017;:1–81. https://www.acupuncture.org.au/resources/publications/the-acupuncture-evidence-project-a-comparative-literature-review-2017/

4. Birch S, Lee MS, Alraek T, et al. Overview of Treatment Guidelines and Clinical Practical Guidelines That Recommend the Use of Acupuncture: A Bibliometric Analysis. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Published Online First: 18 June 2018. doi:10.1089/acm.2018.0092

5. Prasad V, Vandross A, Toomey C, et al. A decade of reversal: an analysis of 146 contradicted medical practices. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2013;88:790–8. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.05.012

6. Prasad V, Ioannidis JP. Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices. Implement Sci 2014;9:1. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-1

7. Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, et al. Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet 2017;390:156–68. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32585-5

8. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ 2016;353:i2139. doi:10.1136/bmj.i2139

9. Corbett MS, Rice SJC, Madurasinghe V, et al. Acupuncture and other physical treatments for the relief of pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee: network meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2013;21:1290–8. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2013.05.007

10. Dong W, Goost H, Lin X-B, et al. Treatments for shoulder impingement syndrome: a PRISMA systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e510. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000000510

11. Lewis R, FLCOM NHWPF, PhD AJS, et al. Comparative clinical effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and network meta-analyses. The Spine Journal 2015;15:1461–77. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.049

12. Zhu L, Ma Y, Deng X. Comparison of acupuncture and other drugs for chronic constipation: A network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2018;13:e0196128. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196128

13. Fan AY, Miller DW, Bolash B, et al. Acupuncture’s Role in Solving the Opioid Epidemic: Evidence, Cost-Effectiveness, and Care Availability for Acupuncture as a Primary, Non-Pharmacologic Method for Pain Relief and Management–White Paper 2017. Journal of Integrative Medicine2017;15:411–25. doi:10.1016/S2095-4964(17)60378-9

14. Verkhratsky A, Burnstock G. Biology of purinergic signalling: Its ancient evolutionary roots, its omnipresence and its multiple functional significance. Bioessays 2014;36:697–705. doi:10.1002/bies.201400024

15. Burnstock G. Purinergic signaling in acupuncture. Science 2014.

16. Goldman N, Chen M, Fujita T, et al. Adenosine A1 receptors mediate local anti-nociceptive effects of acupuncture. Nat Neurosci 2010;13:883–8. doi:10.1038/nn.2562

17. Huang M, Wang X, Xing B, et al. Critical roles of TRPV2 channels, histamine H1 and adenosine A1 receptors in the initiation of acupoint signals for acupuncture analgesia. Sci Rep 2018;8:6523. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-24654-y

18. Takano T, Chen X, Luo F, et al. Traditional Acupuncture Triggers a Local Increase in Adenosine in Human Subjects. The Journal of Pain 2012;13:1215–23. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2012.09.012

19. Fried NT, Elliott MB, Oshinsky ML. The Role of Adenosine Signaling in Headache: A Review. Brain Sci 2017;7. doi:10.3390/brainsci7030030

20. Faas MM, Sáez T, de Vos P. Extracellular ATP and adenosine: The Yin and Yang in immune responses? Molecular Aspects of Medicine 2017;:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.mam.2017.01.002

21. Whiteside TL. Targeting adenosine in cancer immunotherapy: a review of recent progress. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 2017;17:527–35. doi:10.1080/14737140.2017.1316197

22. Masino SA, Kawamura M Jr., Cote JL, et al. Adenosine and autism: A spectrum of opportunities. Neuropharmacology 2013;68:116–21. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.08.013

23. Woods LT, Ajit D, Camden JM, et al. Purinergic receptors as potential therapeutic targets in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropharmacology 2016;104:169–79. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.10.031

24. Burnstock G, Ralevic V, Perez DM. Purinergic Signaling and Blood Vessels in Health and Disease. Pharmacol Rev 2014;66:102–92. doi:10.1124/pr.113.008029

25. Burnstock G. Purinergic Signaling in the Cardiovascular System. Circulation Research 2017;120:207–28. doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.309726

26. Burnstock G. Purinergic signalling in endocrine organs. Purinergic Signalling 2013;10:189–231. doi:10.1007/s11302-013-9396-x

27. Oliveira Á, Illes P, Ulrich H. Purinergic receptors in embryonic and adult neurogenesis. Neuropharmacology 2016;104:272–81. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.10.008

28. Burnstock G. Purinergic Signalling in the Gut. In: The Enteric Nervous System. Cham: : Springer International Publishing 2016. 91–112. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27592-5_10

29. Borea PA, Gessi S, Merighi S, et al. Adenosine as a Multi-Signalling Guardian Angel in Human Diseases: When, Where and How Does it Exert its Protective Effects? Trends Pharmacol Sci 2016;37:419–34. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2016.02.006

30. Cho ZH, Hwang SC, Wong EK, et al. Neural substrates, experimental evidences and functional hypothesis of acupuncture mechanisms. Acta Neurol Scand 2006;113:370–7. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.2006.00600.x

31. Lund I, Lundeberg T. Mechanisms of Acupuncture. Acupuncture and Related Therapies Published Online First: 2016. doi:10.1016/j.arthe.2016.12.001

32. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, et al. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials 1998;19:159–66.

33. Tian J, Zhang J, Ge L, et al. The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2017;85:50–8. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.004

34. McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, et al. Reporting bias in medical research – a narrative review. Trials 2010;11:37. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-37

35. Lee K, Bacchetti P, Sim I. Publication of clinical trials supporting successful new drug applications: a literature analysis. PLoS Med 2008;5:e191. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050191

36. Heneghan C, Mahtani KR, Goldacre B, et al. Evidence based medicine manifesto for better healthcare: A response to systematic bias, wastage, error and fraud in research underpinning patient care. Evidence-Based Medicine 2017;22:120–2. doi:10.1136/ebmed-2017-j2973repsources to use: Also, this Wikipedia lead helps prove that Wikipedia has an agenda to continue the massive industrial complexes that anti-human and greed based. 208.104.54.103 (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 * —reply: "I can confidently say given that you reject the effectiveness of modern medicine and are invoking big pharma conspiracies that you are a crank, and that it's not worth wasting by time talking to you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)" tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure how your 2 references beat out 13,000+ In science, quality beats quantity. At least it should do so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Wooden language
—that's the wooden language of alt-med peddlers. What those words mean? That they're discontent with empirical science. And that they don't really have better science, but they're just trying to pull the wool over our faces. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your comment. Would you mind formulate your concern in plain English? I am not able to provive a replay if I do not have a clear explanation of the potertial issue.
 * Many thanks Safetystuff (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 * It means that is the standard complaint of pseudoscientists about "Western" science. tgeorgescu (talk)  02:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the authors writing these papers on Science and Nature are pseudoscientists?
 * I have referencing contributions from two prestegious journals, Science and Nature. You might want to raise this issue with these journals if you have strong argumenst proving they are pseudoscientists and their research is not reliable. I do not think Wikipedia is the right place for this judgment. Safetystuff (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's standard pro-quackery jargon, borrowed from quantum flapdoodle.
 * The randomized, controlled trial design, however, has distinct limitations when applied to TCM, because TCM is holistic and conceptual, and it identifies and treats ‘syndromes’ rather than diseases. Same excuse as for why homeopathy cannot be tested through RCTs. Namely, RCTs throw sand in the gears, err, in the holism.
 * Gan c.s. speak of "mechanistic", but consider it a feature, not a bug.
 * Herbalome participants could postpone publishing positive results indefinitely, they just need to claim they need time in order to develop drug patents, which could otherwise be stolen by Western Big Pharma. See? Just claim it is a secret, and they can dodge criticism forever.
 * The paper from Nature Portfolio is advertisement. See WP:PROMO. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverted for now. There are the tone issues, which may be fixable, but the sourcing and weight issues are more difficult to overcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, Gan c.s. do not seem to WP:V their claim, and interpreting the Herbalome paper is a tad difficult, since it is a dialogue between two opposite viewpoints, and the reader has to make up their own mind about which of those viewpoints is right. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By reverting you are basically neglecting one view which is published on top scientific journals: Science and Nature. Is there any conflict of interest?
 * You might want to justify this action before making such a strong decision. This looks to me censure. The statements provided in the new version were supported by references so why are you deleting it? Safetystuff (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did justify my action. Was there part of the explanation that you would like more detail on? To flip things around a bit, are you confident that all the sources you cited were high-quality, reliable sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources were clear and reputable so I have undo your change. Please discuss here before taking actions. If you have issue with the Nature and Science papers please explain what is the issue Safetystuff (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One Nature source is an ad, and the other is an opinion piece ("Viewpoint"). One of the Science sources is a news article. The last source (this one), does not support the proposed article text. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, according to Gan c.s. the "mechanistic" explanation is yet unavailable, but when it will be available, it will be something good, not something bad. That is, they are not opposed to mechanistic thinking, they just think that's too complicated at this time.
 * And I think the rules for sourcing need an explanation: according to WP:PARITY, the two sides of the dispute are not equal, so lower-quality sources are allowed for rendering the mainstream scientific position, but not for rendering the WP:PROFRINGE position. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to remind you that Science is not based on democratic consent. If democratic consent is the backbone of Wikipedia then we need better than this if we want to use it to disseminate Science.
 * Just a small story from over 100y ago
 * "One hundred German physicists claim Einsteins theory of relativity is wrong." Einsteins reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one." Safetystuff (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the scientific consensus was that relativity was wrong, then Wikipedia, if it had been around then, would have reported that relativity was wrong. See WP:NOT. Brunton (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought Wikipedia was aiming to inform the public on many things including scientific progress. It seems the system is not built to provide unbiased information to the public. Pretty scary Safetystuff (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to remind you that Science is not based on democratic consent Next time, please respond to what people actually say instead of what you are fantasizing they said. tgeorgescu talked about lower-quality sources, not about "democratic consent". But I understand that you need to use bad reasoning - you have no choice since there are no good reasons for your position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will ask colleagues from our Medical School for better references.
 * No need to be aggressive/rude as your colleague/friend just admitted that democratic consent is the rule on Wikipedia. So please avoid personal attacks as we are all here to share knowledge without an agenda. Aren't we?
 * p
 * Please refer to the previous reply I received of on the democratic consent on Wikipedia. No need to attack me as I am on Wikipedia to spread scientific knowledge. Sometimes the state of the art is not back or white and people have the right to know. Safetystuff (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia is not. So, yes, it is about WP:CONSENSUS, but not a democratic one.
 * And Wikipedia is indeed biased, see WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, and WP:FRINGE.
 * Artemisinin has been objectively shown to work, but such success stories are few and far between. There could be tens of similar medicines hiding among TCM cures, but it would require thousands of billions USD to research them, and it would require Chinese medical scientists to deny for 99% of TCM cures that those are effective, which in present-day China seems like academic suicide. Being honest would mean quarrels with every TCM professor in the country, and would likely get that scientist arrested. Because, even if most of TCM is not effective, it is big business and brings a lot of money for the country. Being honest about TCM would mean the death of many lucrative enterprises. The Chinese government has the same attitude towards researching the truth about TCM as the Trump government had about researching the truth about anthropogenic global warming. The difference being that Trump could not get scientists arrested at whim. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Scientific questions are not resolved by platitudes and trivialities. You can talk about "black and white" or "not democratic" as much as you want, it still comes down to facts and sources. And it is still true that nobody said anything about "democratic consent". Stop using this straw man. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and western biomedicine colonialism bias/western ethnocentrism
Describing Traditional Chinese Medicine as "pseudoscience" in a post-WHO recognized practice world is nothing short of an ethnocentric bias by western biomedical gatekeepers of medicine/healthcare. This article needs to be edited to recognize the medical anthropology concept of medical pluralism that notes the art of medical care, not just as empirical research of western medicine, but many different practices and techniques shown to be effective (even if empirical research fails to understand how these methods work) are functional methods of healthcare/medicine. Healthcare in of itself is not empirical science. It has existed since the Paleolithic and found in several different animal species other than humans (H. sapiens). Over time certain methods and practices have been proven to be ineffective, even within biomedicine. But some things have stood the test of time regardless if it is associated with biomedicine or not. TCM is one of those practices that have shown to be effective even in some cases where biomedicine fails to be effective. The label "pseudoscience" was important in the age of miasma theory vs germ theory when biomedicine was critiquing itself. But now western biomedicine serves as a vessel for colonialism by means of stealing methods and practices from non-western cultures, repurposing what is found to be "effective" through empirical research, and plagiarizing it as a part of biomedicine while slandering the non-biomedicine practices as "pseudoscience." This term is derogatory and places TCM under the same umbrella as flat earth, creationism/intelligent design, and miasma theory. Please see Medical Anthropology: A Biocultural Approach by Wiley and Allen and use these sources below:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1281

https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/from-the-staff/stop-using-the-word-pseudoscience ChallengingAnthropocentrism (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Medicine is not like anthropology field that you come from. It is far less subjective, despite complications with the placebo effect and other confounding factors. There is no robust clinical proof the vast majority of Traditional Chinese Medicine have any sort of effectiveness (see ). TCM is pseudoscience because it claims to be a rational method of treatment based on concepts that are not scientific, like vital meridians (see ). TCM practitioners often make outlandish claims regarding the effectiveness of their products . Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * —generally speaking, robust empirical research never claimed that TCM does work at all, with a few exceptions. TCM was adopted by chairman Mao because Western-style anesthesia was too expensive. And the people who dared to say that anesthesia through acupuncture did not work were sent to concentration camps. That's how Mao obtained a consensus on TCM: he sent everybody who disagreed to the labor camp. Mao killed more innocent people than Hitler or Stalin.
 * TCM relies upon Ancient mystical hogwash, which was revived for utterly cynical reasons under National-Communism.
 * Medical pluralism might be normative at your faculty, it isn't normative at Wikipedia. It is simply your norm, not our norm. Here normative are WP:MEDRS, WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:ECREE, and WP:FRINGE. In the end, Wikipedia is what it is, is not a forum with limitless free speech, so you have to obey our WP:RULES, like any other person who wants to edit here.
 * If you think we should kowtow to medical pluralism: you're in the wrong place. It's none of our business, see WP:RGW.
 * I can understand perfectly the argument you're making, and I can tell you for a fact that it is contrary to the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia. Just because I understand your argument, I don't have to agree with it, nor does anyone else.
 * Your POV would be absolutely correct in Larry Sanger's interpretation of WP:NPOV (what neutrality should mean according to him). But you should know that the Sangerite interpretation has been vanquished, here at Wikipedia.
 * Editing is done by the Wikipedia Community, the community is a social group, a social group has social norms, and your argument does not comply with the norms for editing Wikipedia articles. You may choose to become an insider or to remain an outsider. The choice is yours.
 * —in the anthropological sense, any superstitious hogwash still practiced in the 21st century "has stood the test of time". That does not say anything though about being capable of healing diseases. Anthropology isn't the science called to make that call. It is just hogwash which has endured for centuries. Anthropology cannot offer the answer if it is effective medicine or quackery. It does not have the required tools for doing that. Medical science has. Anthropology can say "This group of people behave like spirits are real." It cannot say "Spirits are real." That's not how anthropology works. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "'This does not at all mean that we don’t in loose, rough and ready ways judge interpretations… all the time. And this does not at all mean that practically speaking that some interpretations are obviously slightly better than others. Let me return to familiar ones like the traffic light. If it’s red and you see it as green, the outcome can be disastrous; Derrida doesn’t deny it. You know, it’s a bad misreading… bad misreading. But this is a familiar mistake and it is made about a lot of Derrida’s work. Philosophers call someone a relativist by which they mean it’s a person that holds that any view is as good as any other view. My simple response to that is this: that is a straw person argument, no-one in the world believes it or ever has believed it.'No-one – Derrida or anyone else – believes that every view is as good as every other view. That’s only a view we discuss in freshman philosophy class in order to quickly refute it. I mean no-one believes it. There are no defenders of the view and since this tape will be going out, if we run into one it will be interesting, but we will likely find that person in one of the institutions Foucault discussed rather than in some seminar, okay. That’s where we will find them, if anybody believes that. No, Derrida’s kind of slippage is to remind us that the text of philosophy is not fixed; can not be fixed. It is of the nature of the text of philosophy and its relation to language that we cannot fix it once and for all. In a way it’s like the leaky ship where we haven’t got anything to stop the leak so we just keep bailing. I mean, the leak is in the language.'"
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu. And, to answer the charge, it is medical-science-centrism, not ethnocentrism. It is a big difference, though. We don't say that people of Chinese, Hindu, or African origin cannot practice medical science. We criticize superstitions, not nations, nor ethnic groups. Or, to put it otherwise, is nuclear physics ethnocentric? No, since North Korea and Iran love nuclear power. They don't reject nuclear physics as "Western colonialism". Their uranium centrifuges have been designed in the West, but for some reason they don't regard that as "cultural imperialism".
 * And I can grant you the point that many Chinese herbal teas are effective against diseases. But this is merely because allopathic medicines have been added to the herbs, so marketing them as natural products is a scam. And let's not forget about Herb-Induced Liver Injury. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "In Taiwan to a quarter of traditional Chinese medicines there were seemingly added standard medicines (which are available on prescription). Among them there were dangerous substances, such as phenytoin (an anti-epileptic), glibenclamide (lowers blood sugar) and corticosteroids."

- prof. dr. Martijn B. Katan

 * "In Taiwan a quarter of traditional Chinese medicines were found to apparently incorporate (prescription) drugs. Among them there were dangerous substances, such as phenytoin (an anti-convulsive), glibenclamide (lowers blood sugar) and corticosteroids."

- prof. dr. Martijn B. Katan

 * Two alternative translations of the same WP:RS. In Dutch:
 * "In supplementen worden ook in Nederland regelmatig toxische gehaltes aangetroffen van lood, arsenicum, kwik, thallium en cadmium. Deels zijn het verontreinigingen, deels zijn ze toegevoegd vanuit het misplaatste idee dat ze ziekten genezen. Deze stoffen hebben geleid tot hersenoedeem, kanker, nierfalen en sterfte. Verder worden aan Chinese en Indische kruiden soms heimelijk gewone geneesmiddelen toegevoegd om de werking te versterken. In Taiwan bleken aan een kwart van de traditionele Chinese medicijnen gewone (recept)geneesmiddelen te zijn toegevoegd. Daaronder waren gevaarlijke stoffen als phenytoïne (een anti-epilepsiemiddel), glibenclamide (bloedsuikerverlagend) en corti-costeroïden. Ook kruiden en theesoorten om te vermageren kunnen ernstige bijwerkingen hebben."

- Martijn B. Katan

 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You completely missed the point. I am not claiming that TCM is a replacement or equivalent to western biomedicine. I am illustrating the medical pluralism argument of healthcare being an art form, not just a science. What I propose is to remove the derogatory term "pseudoscience" which has been used to promote colonialism and racism. ChallengingAnthropocentrism (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No he did not. Things can have more than one property. Something can be an art form and a pseudoscience. That "colonialism and racism" accusation is balderdash. The same people who call TCM pseudosience also call chiropractic and homeopathy pseudoscience, and they [later addition: "they" means those two pseudociences] come from the US and Germany. You are trying to promote WP:FRINGE content and whitewash dangerous quackery that can kill people. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nearly every other language of this article is not derogatorily referring TCM, and have sound sourcing/citation, why is that? 58.152.67.69 (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My educated guess is: because they have not adopted WP:RULES such as WP:MEDRS, WP:PSCI, and WP:FRINGE. And above all: because they don't love science enough. They still lean for the Sangerite understanding of WP:NPOV as bereft of the WP:GEVAL proviso. They have to grow up. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Two Spanish Wikipedia lead sentences (machine translated) from es:Medicina china tradicional: It has been described as "laden with pseudoscience," and most of its treatments do not have a logical, scientifically based mechanism of action.[56] and: However, it is important to note that the concept of vital energy is pseudoscientific, and scientific research has not found any histological or physiological evidence to support the traditional Chinese concepts of qi, or meridians.note [111]
 * One French Wikipedia lead paragraph (machine translated) from fr:Médecine traditionnelle chinoise: Alongside the history of Chinese medicine, numerous therapies are offered today under the label of “traditional Chinese medicine”, inspired more or less freely by elements of this tradition without updating for essentially folkloric reasons. or commercial1, and constitute a pseudo-science[2,3], with sometimes deleterious effects on potential patients[4].
 * One German Wikipedia lead paragraph (machine translated) from de:Traditionelle chinesische Medizin: From a scientific point of view, the therapeutic effectiveness of many TCM treatment methods is disputed and several treatment methods are considered pseudoscientific.[10][11] In general, the assumptions of TCM contradict current facts about human physiology or anatomy.[6]
 * I don't know where you got your Nearly every other language of this article is not claim, but it is not from those three. And even if it were as you say: Wikipedia, in whatever language, is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place for TCM, if you want to get detailed info on that, go to Baidu, Wikipedia don't have nearly enough TCM practitioners to make this article lean that way. 58.152.67.69 (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of not having enough editors. The policies and guidelines of Wikipedia do not allow us to treat TCM the way OP and you want. You would be right only if the following were abolished: WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS; WP:LUNATICS, WP:CHOPSY and WP:GOODBIAS; WP:DUE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE; WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM. Since this hasn't happened, you're wrong, completely wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I know, I am talking about these polices, there is not enough TCM practitioners here to influence them, and I'm not even thinking about "treat TCM the way OP and I want.", I'm just saying Baidu is more tolerant with TCM. 58.152.67.69 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, the policies and guidelines are subservient to the purpose of writing a science- and WP:SCHOLARSHIP-based encyclopedia. Meaning: WP:PAGs are not arbitrary whims, which could change through democratic participation. We're merciless with superstitions, including with Western superstitions. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I should waste more time with you and your policies, It's not even my central point. 58.152.67.69 (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for TCM—I agree. Generally speaking: medical science is not the place for TCM. Or, shorter: science is not the place for TCM. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad we agree. 58.152.67.69 (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine


text:
Clarence Brown

Clarence Leon Brown (May 10, 1890 – August 17, 1987) was an American film director.

Early life
Born in Clinton, Massachusetts, to Larkin Harry Brown, a cotton manufacturer, and Katherine Ann Brown (née Gaw), Brown moved to Tennessee when he was 11 years old. He attended Knoxville High School and the University of Tennessee, both in Knoxville, Tennessee, graduating from the university at the age of 19 with two degrees in engineering. An early fascination in automobiles led Brown to a job with the Stevens-Duryea Company, then to his own Brown Motor Car Company in Alabama. He later abandoned the car dealership after developing an interest in motion pictures around 1913. He was hired by the Peerless Studio at Fort Lee, New Jersey, and became an assistant to the French-born director Maurice Tourneur.

Career
After serving as a fighter pilot and flight instructor in the United States Army Air Service during World War I,    Brown was given his first co-directing credit (with Tourneur) for The Great Redeemer (1920). Later that year, he directed a major portion of The Last of the Mohicans after Tourneur was injured in a fall.

Brown moved to Universal in 1924, and then to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, where he remained until the mid-1950s. At MGM he was one of the main directors of their major female stars, he directed Joan Crawford six times and Greta Garbo seven.

Brown was nominated five times for six films (see below) for an Academy Award as a director, but he never received an Oscar. However, he won Best Foreign Film for Anna Karenina, starring Garbo at the 1935 Venice International Film Festival.

Brown's films gained a total of 38 Academy Award nominations and earned nine Oscars. Brown himself received five Academy Award nominations for six films and in 1949, he won the British Academy Award for the film version of William Faulkner's Intruder in the Dust.

In 1957, Brown was awarded The George Eastman Award, given by George Eastman House for distinguished contribution to the art of film. Brown retired a wealthy man due to his real estate investments, but refused to watch new movies, as he feared they might cause him to restart his career. The Clarence Brown Theater, on the campus of the University of Tennessee, is named in his honor. He holds the record for most nominations for the Academy Award for Best Director without a win, with six.

Personal life
Clarence Brown was married four times. His first marriage was to Paula Herndon Pratt in 1913, which lasted until their divorce in 1920. The couple produced a daughter, Adrienne Brown.

His second marriage was to Ona Wilson, which lasted from 1922 until their divorce in 1927.

He was engaged to Dorothy Sebastian and Mona Maris, although he did not marry either of them, with Maris later saying she ended their relationship because she had her "own ideas of marriage then."

He married his third wife, Alice Joyce, in 1933 and they divorced in 1945.

His last marriage was to Marian Spies in 1946, which lasted until his death in 1987.

Death
Brown died at the Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica, California from kidney failure on August 17, 1987, at the age of 97. He is interred at Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California.

On February 8, 1960, Brown received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 1752 Vine Street, for his contributions to the motion pictures industry.

Director

 * Trilby (1915)
 * The Law of the Land (1917)
 * The Blue Bird (1918)
 * The Great Redeemer (1920)
 * The Last of the Mohicans (1920)
 * The Foolish Matrons (1921)
 * The Light in the Dark (1922)
 * Don't Marry for Money (1923)
 * The Acquittal (1923)

 * The Signal Tower (1924)
 * Butterfly (1924)
 * The Eagle (1925)
 * The Goose Woman (1925)
 * Smouldering Fires (1925)
 * Flesh and the Devil (1926)
 * Kiki (1926)
 * A Woman of Affairs (1928)
 * The Trail of '98 (1929)
 * Navy Blues (1929)
 * Wonder of Women (1929)
 * Anna Christie (1930) – Academy Award nomination for Best Director
 * Romance (1930) – Academy Award nomination for Best Director
 * Inspiration (1931)
 * Possessed (1931)
 * A Free Soul (1931) – Academy Award nomination for Best Director
 * Emma (1932)
 * Letty Lynton (1932)
 * The Son-Daughter (1932)
 * Looking forward (1933)
 * Night Flight (1933)
 * Sadie McKee (1934)
 * Chained (1934)
 * Anna Karenina (1935)
 * Ah, Wilderness! (1935)
 * Wife vs. Secretary (1936)
 * The Gorgeous Hussy (1936)
 * Conquest (1937)
 * Of Human Hearts (1938)
 * Idiot's Delight (1939)
 * The Rains Came (1939)
 * Edison, the Man (1940)
 * Come Live with Me (1941)
 * They Met in Bombay (1941)
 * The Human Comedy (1943) – Academy Award nominations for Best Director and for Best Picture
 * The White Cliffs of Dover (1944)
 * National Velvet (1944) – Academy Award nomination for Best Director
 * The Yearling (1946) – Academy Award nomination for Best Director
 * Song of Love (1947)
 * Intruder in the Dust (1949)
 * To Please a Lady (1950)
 * Angels in the Outfield (1951)
 * When in Rome (1952)
 * Plymouth Adventure (1952)

Actor

 * The Signal Tower (1924) – Switch Man
 * Ben-Hur (1925) – Chariot Race Spectator (uncredited)
 * Navy Blues (1929) – Roller Coaster Rider (uncredited)
 * Possessed (1931) – Man on Merry-Go-Round (uncredited) (final film role)

title: Clarence Brown


text:
Conciliation

Conciliation is a dispute resolution process whereby the parties to a dispute rely on a third-party neutral, the conciliator, to assist them in solving their dispute. The conciliator, who may meet with the parties both separately and together, does this by lowering tensions, improving communication, interpreting issues, encouraging parties to explore potential solvents and assisting parties in finding a mutually acceptable outcome.

Conciliation differs from arbitration in that the conciliation process, in and of itself, has no legal standing, and the conciliator usually has no authority to seek evidence or call witnesses, usually writes no decision, and makes no award.

Conciliation techniques
There is a form of "conciliation" that is more akin to negotiation. A "conciliator" assists each of the parties to independently develop a list of all of their objectives (the outcomes which they desire to obtain from the conciliation). The conciliator then has each of the parties separately prioritize their own list from most to least important. He/She then goes back and forth between the parties and encourages them to "give" on the objectives one at a time, starting with the least important and working toward the most important for each party in turn. The parties rarely place the same priorities on all objectives, and usually have some objectives that are not listed by the other party. Thus the conciliator can quickly build a string of successes and help the parties create an atmosphere of trust which the conciliator can continue to develop.

Most successful "conciliators" in this sense are highly skilled negotiators. Some conciliators operate under the auspices of any one of several non-governmental entities, and for governmental agencies such as the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in the United States.

There is a different form of conciliation that, instead of a linear process of bilateral negotiation, employs deep listening and witnessing. Conciliation literally means: "Process of bringing people together into council". In this second definition, a conciliator is not so much focused on goals and objectives preset by the parties, but more focused on assisting parties to come together to resolve conflicts on their own. Many people in trying to resolve conflict independently come up with solutions that turn into goals based on understanding only a portion of the whole issue. By helping parties understand deeply where all are coming from, different and new solutions emerge from this deep understanding. The conciliator is in service to this deep witnessing between all parties involved. At times when two or more parties are not ready to face each other nor communicate with each other directly, the conciliator helps parties to understand their own perspective, feel more empowered to speak their truth and represent their own needs in a future dialogue with the other parties to the conflict. The conciliator addresses any power disparities perceived by any party in a safe manner. The ensuing dialogue in this form of conciliation can - with the parties' wishes - involve the conciliator as a facilitator until the parties feel comfortable to communicate on their own. This form of conciliation is non-linear and involves an informal method of reconciliation between people who do not necessarily need to negotiate legal issues such as property rights or tort injuries. It can also involve more emotional and passionate elements as tangible and historical topics emerge as the root causes of the conflict. Most successful people who work in conciliation quietly persevere and allow the progressive movements in the parties' healing guide them.

Historical conciliation
Historical conciliation is an applied conflict resolution approach that utilizes historical narratives to positively transform relations between societies in conflicts. Historical conciliation can utilize many different methodologies, including mediation, sustained dialogues, apologies, acknowledgement, support of public commemoration activities, and public diplomacy.

Historical conciliation is not an excavation of objective facts. The point of facilitating historical questions is not to discover all the facts in regard to who was right or wrong. Rather, the objective is to discover the complexity, ambiguity, and emotions surrounding both dominant and non-dominant cultural and individual narratives of history. It is also not a rewriting of history. The goal is not to create a combined narrative that everyone agrees upon. Instead, the aim is to create room for critical thinking and more inclusive understanding of the past and conceptions of “the other”.

Some conflicts that are addressed through historical conciliation have their roots in conflicting identities of the people involved. Whether the identity at stake is their ethnicity, religion or culture, it requires a comprehensive approach that takes people's needs for recognition, hopes, fears, and concerns into account.

Some conflicts might be based in unmet needs for security or recognition, or thwarted development. To learn more about the theory of basic human social needs and how they give rise to conflict, please see John Burton, Karen Horney, Hannah Arendt, and Johan Galtung to name a few.

While the above historical summary speaks to some uses of conciliation, it is not the only method and by itself cannot address the entirety of a system of protracted historical conflict. A holistic approach to resolving deep-rooted violent conflict would ideally employ all methods of conflict resolution - education, negotiation, analysis, diplomacy, second track diplomacy, mass therapy, truth and reconciliation, cultural inventory, leadership, peer mediation/facilitation. In short, to resolve a deeply rooted prolonged crisis, it takes all of us, coming from our strengths and positive intentions, and a willingness to allow everyone to come to the table.

For examples of applied conciliation from an historical context, look for Quaker efforts in witness and peacemaking in London, New York and South Africa.

Japan
Japanese law makes extensive use of conciliation (調停) in civil disputes. The most common forms are civil conciliation and domestic conciliation, both of which are managed under the auspice of the court system by one judge and two non-judge "conciliators".

Civil conciliation is a form of dispute resolution for small lawsuits, and provides a simpler and cheaper alternative to litigation. Depending on the nature of the case, non-judge experts (doctors, appraisers, actuaries, and so on) may be called by the court as conciliators to help decide the case.

Domestic conciliation is most commonly used to handle contentious divorces, but may apply to other domestic disputes such as the annulment of a marriage or acknowledgment of paternity. Parties in such cases are required to undergo conciliation proceedings and may only bring their case to court once conciliation has failed.

title: Conciliation


text:
Cyclone (programming language)

The Cyclone programming language was intended to be a safe dialect of the C language. It avoids buffer overflows and other vulnerabilities that are possible in C programs by design, without losing the power and convenience of C as a tool for system programming. It is no longer supported by its original developers, with the reference tooling not supporting 64-bit platforms. The Rust language is mentioned by the original developers for having integrated many of the same ideas Cyclone had.

Cyclone development was started as a joint project of AT&T Labs Research and Greg Morrisett's group at Cornell University in 2001. Version 1.0 was released on May 8, 2006.

Language features
Cyclone attempts to avoid some of the common pitfalls of C, while still maintaining its look and performance. To this end, Cyclone places the following limits on programs:
 * checks are inserted to prevent segmentation faults
 * Pointer arithmetic is limited
 * Pointers must be initialized before use (this is enforced by definite assignment analysis)
 * Dangling pointers are prevented through region analysis and limits on
 * Only "safe" casts and unions are allowed
 * into scopes is disallowed
 * labels in different scopes are disallowed
 * Pointer-returning functions must execute
 * and  are not supported

To maintain the tool set that C programmers are used to, Cyclone provides the following extensions:
 * Never- pointers do not require   checks
 * "Fat" pointers support pointer arithmetic with run-time bounds checking
 * Growable regions support a form of safe manual memory management
 * Garbage collection for heap-allocated values
 * Tagged unions support type-varying arguments
 * Injections help automate the use of tagged unions for programmers
 * Polymorphism replaces some uses of
 * varargs are implemented as fat pointers
 * Exceptions replace some uses of  and

For a better high-level introduction to Cyclone, the reasoning behind Cyclone and the source of these lists, see this paper.

Cyclone looks, in general, much like C, but it should be viewed as a C-like language.

Pointer types
Cyclone implements three kinds of pointer: The purpose of introducing these new pointer types is to avoid common problems when using pointers. Take for instance a function, called  that takes a pointer to an int: Although the person who wrote the function  could have inserted   checks, let us assume that for performance reasons they did not. Calling  will result in undefined behavior (typically, although not necessarily, a SIGSEGV signal being sent to the application). To avoid such problems, Cyclone introduces the  pointer type, which can never be. Thus, the "safe" version of  would be: This tells the Cyclone compiler that the argument to  should never be , avoiding the aforementioned undefined behavior. The simple change of  to   saves the programmer from having to write   checks and the operating system from having to trap   pointer dereferences. This extra limit, however, can be a rather large stumbling block for most C programmers, who are used to being able to manipulate their pointers directly with arithmetic. Although this is desirable, it can lead to buffer overflows and other "off-by-one"-style mistakes. To avoid this, the  pointer type is delimited by a known bound, the size of the array. Although this adds overhead due to the extra information stored about the pointer, it improves safety and security. Take for instance a simple (and naïve)  function, written in C: This function assumes that the string being passed in is terminated by NULL. However, what would happen if char buf[6] = {'h','e','l','l','o','!'}; were passed to this string? This is perfectly legal in C, yet would cause  to iterate through memory not necessarily associated with the string. There are functions, such as  which can be used to avoid such problems, but these functions are not standard with every implementation of ANSI C. The Cyclone version of  is not so different from the C version: Here,  bounds itself by the length of the array passed to it, thus not going over the actual length. Each of the kinds of pointer type can be safely cast to each of the others, and arrays and strings are automatically cast to  by the compiler. (Casting from  to   invokes a bounds check, and casting from   to   invokes both a   check and a bounds check. Casting from   to   results in no checks whatsoever; the resulting   pointer has a size of 1.)
 * (the normal type)
 * (the never- pointer), and
 * (the only type with pointer arithmetic allowed, "fat" pointers).

Dangling pointers and region analysis
Consider the following code, in C: The function  allocates an array of chars   on the stack and returns a pointer to the start of. However, the memory used on the stack for  is deallocated when the function returns, so the returned value cannot be used safely outside of the function. While GNU Compiler Collection and other compilers will warn about such code, the following will typically compile without warnings: GNU Compiler Collection can produce warnings for such code as a side-effect of option -O2 or -O3, but there are no guarantees that all such errors will be detected. Cyclone does regional analysis of each segment of code, preventing dangling pointers, such as the one returned from this version of. All of the local variables in a given scope are considered to be part of the same region, separate from the heap or any other local region. Thus, when analyzing, the Cyclone compiler would see that   is a pointer into the local stack, and would report an error.

title: Cyclone (programming language)


text:
Cognitivism

Cognitivism may refer to:
 * Cognitivism (ethics), the philosophical view that ethical sentences express propositions and are capable of being true or false
 * Cognitivism (psychology), a psychological approach that argues that mental function can be understood as the internal manipulation of symbols
 * Cognitivism (aesthetics), a view that cognitive psychology can help understand art and the response to it
 * Anecdotal cognitivism, a psychological methodology for interpreting animal behavior in terms of mental states

title: Cognitivism


text:
Counter (digital)

In digital logic and computing, a counter is a device which stores (and sometimes displays) the number of times a particular event or process has occurred, often in relationship to a clock. The most common type is a sequential digital logic circuit with an input line called the clock  and multiple output lines. The values on the output lines represent a number in the binary or BCD number system. Each pulse applied to the clock input increments or decrements the number in the counter.

A counter circuit is usually constructed of several flip-flops connected in a cascade. Counters are a very widely used component in digital circuits, and are manufactured as separate integrated circuits and also incorporated as parts of larger integrated circuits.

Electronic counters
An electronic counter is a sequential logic circuit that has a clock input signal and a group of output signals that represent an integer "counts" value. Upon each qualified clock edge, the circuit will increment (or decrement, depending on circuit design) the counts. When the counts have reached the end of the counting sequence (maximum counts when incrementing; zero counts when decrementing), the next clock will cause the counts to overflow or underflow, and the counting sequence will start over. Internally, counters use flip-flops to represent the current counts and to retain the counts between clocks. Depending on the type of counter, the output may be a direct representation of the counts (a binary number), or it may be encoded. Examples of the latter include ring counters and counters that output Gray codes.

Many counters provide additional input signals to facilitate dynamic control of the counting sequence, such as:
 * Reset – sets counts to zero. Some IC manufacturers name it "clear" or "master reset (MR)".
 * Enable – allows or inhibits counting.
 * Direction – determines whether counts will increment or decrement.
 * Data – parallel input data which represents a particular counts value.
 * Load – copies parallel input data to the counts.

Some counters provide a Terminal Count output which indicates that the next clock will cause overflow or underflow. This is commonly used to implement counter cascading (combining two or more counters to create a single, larger counter) by connecting the Terminal Count output of one counter to the Enable input of the next counter.

The modulus of a counter is the number of states in its count sequence. The maximum possible modulus is determined by the number of flip-flops. For example, a four-bit counter can have a modulus of up to 16 (2^4).

Counters are generally classified as either synchronous or asynchronous. In synchronous counters, all flip-flops share a common clock and change state at the same time. In asynchronous counters, each flip-flop has a unique clock, and the flip-flop states change at different times.

Counters are categorized in various ways. For example:
 * Modulus counter – counts through a particular number of states.
 * Decade counter – modulus ten counter (counts through ten states).
 * Up/down counter – counts up and down, as directed by a control input, or by the use of separate "up" and "down" clocks.
 * Ring counter – formed by a "circular" shift register.
 * Johnson counter – a twisted ring counter.
 * Gray-code counter – outputs a sequence of Gray codes.
 * Shift register generator counter – based on a shift register with feedback.

Counters are implemented in a variety of ways, including as dedicated MSI and LSI integrated circuits, as embedded counters within ASICs, as general-purpose counter and timer peripherals in microcontrollers, and as IP blocks in FPGAs.

Asynchronous (ripple) counter

An asynchronous (ripple) counter is a "chain" of toggle (T) flip-flops wherein the least-significant flip-flop (bit 0) is clocked by an external signal (the counter input clock), and all other flip-flops are clocked by the output of the nearest, less significant flip-flop (e.g., bit 0 clocks the bit 1 flip-flop, bit 1 clocks the bit 2 flip-flop, etc.). The first flip-flop is clocked by rising edges; all other flip-flops in the chain are clocked by falling clock edges. Each flip-flop introduces a delay from clock edge to output toggle, thus causing the counter bits to change at different times and producing a ripple effect as the input clock propagates through the chain. When implemented with discrete flip-flops, ripple counters are commonly implemented with JK flip-flops, with each flip-flop configured to toggle when clocked (i.e., J and K are both connected to logic high).

In the simplest case, a one-bit counter consists of a single flip-flop. This counter will increment (by toggling its output) once per clock cycle and will count from zero to one before overflowing (starting over at zero). Each output state corresponds to two clock cycles; consequently, the flip-flop output frequency is exactly half the frequency of the input clock. If this output is then used as the clock signal for a second flip-flop, the pair of flip-flops will form a two-bit ripple counter with the following state sequence:

Additional flip-flops may be added to the chain to form counters of any arbitrary word size, with the output frequency of each bit equal to exactly half the frequency of the nearest, less significant bit.

Ripple counters exhibit unstable output states while the input clock propagates through the circuit. The duration of this instability (the output settling time) is proportional to the number of flip-flops. This makes ripple counters unsuitable for use in synchronous circuits that require the counter to have a fast output settling time. Also, it is often impractical to use ripple counter output bits as clocks for external circuits because the ripple effect causes timing skew between the bits. Ripple counters are commonly used as general-purpose counters and clock frequency dividers in applications where the instantaneous count and timing skew is unimportant.

Synchronous counter

In a synchronous counter, the clock inputs of the flip-flops are connected, and the common clock simultaneously triggers all flip-flops. Consequently, all of the flip-flops change state at the same time (in parallel).

For example, the circuit shown to the right is an ascending (up-counting) four-bit synchronous counter implemented with JK flip-flops. Each bit of this counter is allowed to toggle when all of the less significant bits are at a logic high state. Upon clock rising edge, bit 1 toggles if bit 0 is logic high; bit 2 toggles if bits 0 and 1 are both high; bit 3 toggles if bits 2, 1, and 0 are all high.

Decade counter
A decade counter counts in decimal digits, rather than binary. A decade counter may have each (that is, it may count in binary-coded decimal, as the 7490 integrated circuit did) or other binary encodings. A decade counter is a binary counter designed to count to 1001 (decimal 9). An ordinary four-stage counter can be easily modified to a decade counter by adding a NAND gate as in the schematic to the right. Notice that FF2 and FF4 provide the inputs to the NAND gate. The NAND gate outputs are connected to the CLR input of each of the FFs.". It counts from 0 to 9 and then resets to zero. The counter output can be set to zero by pulsing the reset line low. The count then increments on each clock pulse until it reaches 1001 (decimal 9). When it increments to 1010 (decimal 10), both inputs of the NAND gate go high. The result is that the NAND output goes low, and resets the counter to zero. D going low can be a CARRY OUT signal, indicating that there has been a count of ten.

Ring counter
A ring counter is a circular shift register that is initiated such that only one of its flip-flops is the state one while others are in their zero states.

A ring counter is a shift register (a cascade connection of flip-flops) with the output of the last one connected to the input of the first, that is, in a ring. Typically, a pattern consisting of a single bit is circulated, so the state repeats every n clock cycles if n flip-flops are used.

Johnson counter
A Johnson counter (or switch-tail ring counter, twisted ring counter, walking ring counter, or Möbius counter) is a modified ring counter, where the output from the last stage is inverted and fed back as input to the first stage. The register cycles through a sequence of bit-patterns, whose length is equal to twice the length of the shift register, continuing indefinitely. These counters find specialist applications similar to the decade counter (note: the 74x4017 decade counter is a Johnson counter), digital-to-analog conversion, etc. They can be implemented easily using D- or JK-type flip-flops.

Computer science counters
In computability theory, a counter is considered a type of memory. A counter stores a single natural number (initially zero) and can be arbitrarily long. A counter is usually considered in conjunction with a finite-state machine (FSM), which can perform the following operations on the counter:
 * Check whether the counter is zero
 * Increment the counter by one.
 * Decrement the counter by one (if it's already zero, this leaves it unchanged).

The following machines are listed in order of power, with each one being strictly more powerful than the one below it:
 * 1) Deterministic or non-deterministic FSM plus two counters
 * 2) Non-deterministic FSM plus one stack
 * 3) Non-deterministic FSM plus one counter
 * 4) Deterministic FSM plus one counter
 * 5) Deterministic or non-deterministic FSM.

For the first and last, it doesn't matter whether the FSM is a deterministic finite automaton or a nondeterministic finite automaton. They have the same power. The first two and the last one are levels of the Chomsky hierarchy.

The first machine, an FSM plus two counters, is equivalent in power to a Turing machine. See the article on counter machines for a proof.

Web counter
A web counter or hit counter is a computer program that indicates the number of visitors or hits a particular webpage has received. Once set up, these counters will be incremented by one every time the web page is accessed in a web browser.

The number is usually displayed as an inline digital image or in plain text or on a physical counter such as a mechanical counter. Images may be presented in a variety of fonts, or styles; the classic example is the wheels of an odometer.

Web counter was popular in the mid to late 1990s and early 2000s, later replaced by more detailed and complete web traffic measures.

Computer based counters
Many automation systems use PC and laptops to monitor different parameters of machines and production data. Counters may count parameters such as the number of pieces produced, the production batch number, and measurements of the amounts of material used.

Mechanical counters
Long before electronics became common, mechanical devices were used to count events. These are known as tally counters. They typically consist of a series of disks mounted on an axle, with the digits zero through nine marked on their edge. The right-most disk moves one increment with each event. Each disk except the left-most has a protrusion that moves the next disk to the left one increment after the completion of one revolution. Such counters were used as odometers for bicycles and cars and in tape recorders, fuel dispensers, in production machinery as well as in other machinery. One of the largest manufacturers was the Veeder-Root company, and their name was often used for this type of counter.

Handheld tally counters are used mainly for stocktaking and counting people attending events.

Electromechanical counters were used to accumulate totals in tabulating machines that pioneered the data processing industry.

title: Counter (digital)


text:
Cervical mucus method

Cervical mucus method may refer to a specific method of fertility awareness or natural family planning:

 * Billings ovulation method
 * Creighton Model FertilityCare System
 * Two Day Method

title: Cervical mucus method


text:
Talk:Conciliation

Untitled
Since my familiarity with international conciliation is limited, anyone with experience in this area is encouraged to contribute. F. Lee Horn

There exists, on the international level, what they refer to as "good offices" (a neutral third party, such as the UN Secretary-General, tries to get disputing states or armed groups to come to a voluntary resolution of their dispute), but I don't actually know whether this tends to follow the model of conciliation or mediation. (I think which model is followed depends on what the neutral third party feels will work best in the circumstances.) Unfortunately I know nothing really about this except what I've read in some international law textbooks. -- SJK

SJK...why not add what you can and we'll see what happens? :) F. Lee Horn

What is conciliation
Conciliation invovles a third party who attempts to resolve a dispute by talking about the issues with the parties and suggesting ways inwhich the parties may resolve the dispute. The conciliator is actively invovled in the discussion but the parties make the final decision about how the dispute is resolved. the conciliator cannot force the parties to reach an agreement.

Source - The Legal Maze VCE units 1 & 2 -Liz 2388 (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Differentiate from mediation
How is conciliation different than mediation? What is the relationship between these two concepts? Should the articles be merged? If not, please improve the article to clarify the differences. Daask (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Conciliation


text:
Coleridge (disambiguation)

Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834) was an English poet, literary critic, philosopher and theologian.

Coleridge may also refer to:

Places

 * Coleridge, an electoral ward of Cambridge, England
 * Coleridge, Nebraska, U.S.
 * Coleridge, North Carolina, U.S.
 * Lake Coleridge, Canterbury, New Zealand
 * Coleridge Hundred, an ancient subdivision of Devon, England
 * Coleridge (New Zealand electorate), a former parliamentary electorate
 * Coleridge (crater), a crater on planet Mercury
 * Coldridge, Devon, England

Other uses

 * Coleridge (surname), a list of people with the surname Coleridge
 * Baron Coleridge of Ottery St Mary in the County of Devon, a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
 * Coleridge Community College, Cambridge, England
 * SS Empire Coleridge, a tanker ship

title: Coleridge (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Civil rights history

Have you read the pages on Neutral Point of View (NPV) yet? I can understand your wanting to be positive in your approach toward this topic, but, if I may suggest, you may want to present a more balanced and less strident viewpoint. F. Lee Horn

 * True, but not even worth thinking about until we get a few more paragraphs full of historical events and figures in here. There just isn't much here yet to be NPOV about! I've added a bare-bones outline and a few links to imporant figures. Let's try to flesh out this outline, and begin to fill in some information. Hopefully, soon someone with some real knowledge of this topic will come by and add some real detail. RK

I don't think that "equal rights" for homosexuals is part of civil rights history. Giving what i feel is immorality the same legal standing as morality isn't a matter of civil rights, that's merely what gay rights advocates would like us to think. The wikipedia isn't supposed to buy into any particular philisophy; that wouldn't be NPOV. You might say, however, that gay rights activists have portrayed their struggle as ..., etc. What's next, equal rights for pedophiles? "Hey, her mom said it was okay, isn't that right, Lolita?" --User:Ed Poor

As with all groups, there's generally a spectrum, from those who want just a little reform to those who want everything re-ordered with them on top. Extremes are generally not representative of the movement, though; that's why they're called extreme. Certainly many homosexuals have been compaigning just for civil rights: non-discrimination and equal treatment under law. That certainly deserves inclusion under the civil rights history. As for the crack about pedophiles, society has defined children as a specially protected segment of society not capable of being consenting partners to sexual acts. No such persons are involved in the homosexual relationships being discussed. By analogy, one can't say that "whoever heard of freedom of political speech? Next they'll be advocating freedom of announcing State secrets to everyone." I think that's known as the "slippery slope" logical fallacy... -- April

Ed, don't be disingenuous. It's offensive. YOu know how it got put in, because it's in the history. Why was it put in?

 * There is a viable gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights movement in this country and in many other countires. They exist, and their existence can't be legitimately denied.

 * The rights that these people are fighting for are rights from the state, i.e., civil, rights. These rights include equal status under the law in all areas regulated by law.

To me, this says that gays should be included as a group belonging to an overall history of the civil rights movements.

HK

-- Then why doesn't someone put it in?

title: Talk:Civil rights history