ISHAR of Deepak Chopra and Rome Viharo

[PainKiller]

Wikipedia, We Have a Problem FAQ addresses some of these questions and gives the context to OP's post and motivation behind this discussion.

http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/wwhp-faq/

happy new year.

Your Faq is not reliable, it contains false information.

Do you claim that Tim Farley is Wikipedia editor Manul?

I can’t say for certain, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that links them, and for sure they at least are apart of one community that co-ordinates.

Tim Farley is Krelnik above. He has nothing to do with Manul.

The charge against me on Wikipedia as a sock puppet, however, was bogus and did not stick. I was cleared of this.

Wrong you have sock-puppeted. You created the account tumbleman which you were banned on. You then created a new account called SAS81 but did not declare this when you created your new account. This is deliberate deception.

A sock puppet is used as a weasel word to discredit someone in an online wiki. ‘Sock puppet’, as the word is commonly abused online, is often thrown at anyone to lessen the credibility of their participation. The term as originally defined means using multiple accounts at the same time to participate in a discussion or collaboration in some manner, like astro turfing somewhat.

Wrong. The definition of a sock-puppet is very simple:

A false online identity used for deceptive purposes

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sock puppet

Which you were banned for.

Isn’t that you breaking Wikipedia’s policy?

Yes, by circumventing my ban, I am willfully breaking Wikipedia’s rule. I can accept if there are reasonable Wikipedians who wish to criticize me for that decision.

At least you admit this.

Correct, for about 6 months. Deepak Chopra approached me to work with him, however, specifically on his Wikipedia problem and not because of anything else. I was able to bring resolution to his Wikipedia article in around 30 to 40 days.

I created the original architecture for ISHAR, a digital library for Deepak Chopra and The Chopra Foundation.

But doesn’t that make you a ‘promoter of pseudoscience’, like they claim?

Why would it? It was a research library that simply was a database of all academic and scientific study of alternative medicines and various mind/body practices from Yoga to martial arts. It’s just a database of academic literature. I designed the architecture for a database. What is the controversy again?

The term pseudoscience does not even apply here. It makes no sense, unless you just want to discredit and embarrass someone.

It is a research library that supports mind/body woo and papers arguing for the existence of psychic powers. The term pseudoscience does apply here and you were the original creator of it.

To be honest, I find the fact that this publication causes so much disruption at Wikipedia amongst these editors that they blacklist and suppress even discussion of Wikipedia, We have a Problem is actually quite an honor, I must be doing something good.

It is blacklisted because your website contains false information about Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. It is not a moral thing to create a website attacking skeptics such as Tim Farley or Manul accusing them of things they have not done. It is seen as an attack website and I know of nobody who takes it seriously apart from paranormal proponents such as your associate Alex Tsakiris of skeptiko who you did an interview with.

http://skeptiko.com/236-rome-viharo-wikipedia-we-have-a-problem/

 

[HighRiser]

It'd be better not to publish crap that there's no evidence for in the first place, wouldn't it?

 

[ISHAR]

Thanks, Mojo!

Dear ISHAR,

By necessity, I'm a practical person. A tradesman with 39 years spent developing skills in most disciplines; from rough framing to fine carpentry, mechanical and electrical systems installation and repair, to repairing heavy equipment that's mired in the mud.

I said all that so you might better understand what I'm going to say next. I've never prayed a thing into good repair. Or chanted mantras that revealed the answer to a mystery. Never wished anything into being fixed. The materialistic worldview is the only thing that has had any measurable effect on my life.

Working the problem by following the evidence without fooling yourself by making unfounded assumptions along the way is the path that I strive to follow.

Mysticism, on the other hand, is just as useful as any other fiction: Something to take one's mind off of the drudgery of the things that must be done. Entertainment. Much of the same value as the arts. The beauty of some ideas and ideals has tugged at my heartstrings just as much as Mozart or Monet ever have. The depravity of others sickens me even more than the twisted pleasures I get from Stephen King or Umberto Echo novels. But as much as I enjoy it, I don't fool myself into thinking that any form of mysticism has any real usefulness to science. Perhaps, one day, psychology will get some benefit. For now... no.

The last I'll say is that I've read just enough Chopra to know that his path is not mine. And to me, dissemination of any informational resources that he's involved with need to be scrutinized by rational persons BEFORE publication. Some people are foolish enough to think that wishes come true if they only wish hard enough. The books that man sells to them encourage such wishful thinking, and teach nothing of practical value. Chopra knows this and profits. Sometimes to his more credulous reader's peril.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I think we actually agree on more things that you would expect. ISHAR is not intended to be pro-mysticisim, anti-matierialism, or pro/anti anything for that matter. In fact, the majority of our content on spirituality relates to sociological and anthropological effects of belief in customs, behavior, and health.

We house and contextualize research and references about these topics, without endorsement or condemnation. ISHAR is not meant to indoctrinate readers with Deepak Chopra's philosophy, and he himself insisted that his own positions should not take a higher priority than other research. Since we have 60K+ sources, that means you will rarely find anything relating to him, in fact. One of the factors that convinced me to work with Deepak Chopra was his insistence on academic integrity and impartiality.

We present evidence, summarize it when we can, and offer the supporting/critiquing sources to our users. Our position is that more information is a good thing, that open-minds are better than closed ones, and that rather than insisting on an exclusive dichotomy of orthodoxy v. mind-body, we bring the two together under the banner of inclusive, evidence-based science. You don't necessarily have to follow Deepak Chopra to find studies you'll agree with on ISHAR, and if you're a follower of Deepak Chopra you won't necessarily agree with everything on ISHAR.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Are you the the same ISHAR from the previous thread?

 

[Joey McGee]

We are not a replacement nor competitor with Wikipedia

It is a good thing that you thought to mention this because I was of the opposite impression this entire time!

(though our sources are cited there),

Bragging about being cited on wikipedia is kind of like bragging about being with Lindsay Lohan.

 

[fuelair]

It is a good thing that you thought to mention this because I was of the opposite impression this entire time! Bragging about being cited on wikipedia is kind of like bragging about being with Lindsay Lohan.

 

[ISHAR]

It is a good thing that you thought to mention this because I was of the opposite impression this entire time! Bragging about being cited on wikipedia is kind of like bragging about being with Lindsay Lohan.

Definitely not bragging. Just clarifying that while we don't focus on Wikipedia, we may pop up here and there in citations from users.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Definitely not bragging. Just clarifying that while we don't focus on Wikipedia, we may pop up here and there in citations from users.

Not "users", deluded idiots. You enable them, and Chopra's profiting off them.

 

[Mojo]

ISHARonline.org has been active for nearly two years and houses over 65,000 sources. We are ad-free, do not charge our users any fees nor require memberships.

How many of these are full-text, as distinct from abstracts, which are already widely available free of charge? For example Pubmed has about 26 million.

It's likely many of you have not heard much about us because our retooling process moved ISHAR away from social media and into the academic arena, where we have been very pleased with our contributions. We are not a replacement nor competitor with Wikipedia (though our sources are cited there)...

When you say your sources are cited on Wikipedia, do you mean that there are Wikipedia articles citing ISHAR, or merely Wikipedia articles citing sources elsewhere that also happen to be included on ISHAR?

 

[Joey McGee]

Definitely not bragging. Just clarifying that while we don't focus on Wikipedia, we may pop up here and there in citations from users.

You seemed to be pretty focused on wikipedia, at least emotionally/spiritually. Hey I'm gonna make a list of who else pops up in citations from users

1. The Church of Scientology
2. The Disclosure Project
3. The Bible
4. The Rantings of Lyndon LaRouche

I need not go on...

 

[fagin]

Do tell.

Can you please tell us about some of these collaborations? And since such collaborations would not be with the university, itself, but with specific research centers and faculty, would you please identify the collaborations with at least that level of detail.

I'm interested too.

 

[Joey McGee]

If I banged Lindsay Lohan, I'd brag about it for sure, but I'd only expect my bro points to go up like .0001 percent, if you catch my drift.

 

[Donn]

We house and contextualize research and references about these topics, without endorsement or condemnation. …[snip]
We present evidence, summarize it when we can, and offer the supporting/critiquing sources to our users. Our position is that …[snip] rather than insisting on an exclusive dichotomy of orthodoxy v. mind-body, we bring the two together under the banner of inclusive, evidence-based science.

Combining rubbish with science is certainly an endorsement of rubbish. You are gilding a turd.

 

[Loss Leader]

we house data as an accessible resource, not an endorsement of their conclusions

Yeah, I'm not buying it. After looking over your site, it's clear that nearly every page and search term is geared towards spiritualistic anti-materialism with a heavy anti-medicine bias. The page on homeopathy, for example, gives lip service to the notion that it's non-medical quackery but then quickly concludes that "researchers" have found many studies that show it to be effective.

Every page including the index is geared towards one particular philosophy.

As a repository of scientific papers, I'm not in any way convinced that your site is better than Google Scholar. Nor am I at all convinced that professional scholars would be unaware of how to find information regarding their disciplines.

 

[PainKiller]

Edited by Agatha: 

edited to remove reference to post sent to AAH
I have never harassed anyone on this forum, this thread is a harmless discussion about ISHAR and its founders. Note that there is an excellent moderating team here that would ban any users for any kind of harassment, but there is none on this thread. It only exists in your head.

If I want to create a thread about you on a skeptic forum, I will do. It is not illegal to ask about the ISHAR of Deepak Chopra and Rome Viharo on an internet forum, neither is it harassment. It is not illegal to mention the name Rome Viharo on the internet. You get that right?

As for these links you posted, thanks for sharing them. One of them directly quoted you as saying:

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove material in breach of rule 9

 

[WWHP]

Hmmm, the quote you are referring to was published on a blog written by the smith brothers. I don't see attribution of that quote to me, I see attribution on that quote to an anonymous Reddit account.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove response to rule breach

 

[Agatha]

Please would you all review your Membership Agreements, paying particular attention to rule 0, rule 8, rule 9 and rule 12.

Remain civil and polite, do not post anything which purports to be another member's real name or other personal information unless it is (a) publicly available and (b) relevant to the thread, do not post anything indecent, and address the arguments made and not the arguers.

Please stick to the topic, which is ISHAR, not Wikipedia We Have a Problem.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[jsfisher]

So far, I have heard claims of what ISHAR was supposed to accomplish and claims of what it is not now. It is not a service to Wikipedia. Ok, I get that, and so we cannot look to Wikipedia for evidence of any impact by ISHAR.

Where can we look? Two years is long enough that we should expect something of substance.

I did a web search for associations with notable universities. A claim was made those were already in place. I found nada. There isn't a university, reasearch center, nor faculty member out there won't brag about their external affiliations with credible organizations. I found nada.

I did a web search for links to ISHARonline.org. If it is an important resource to the research community, then it should get online recognition by the academic community. I found nada. Well, I did find some dated hype from pop-culture sites like Prevention Magazine, but they were at least two years old and pushing a non-academic, non-scientific agenda.

I also did a google scholar search on some of the ISHAR supervisory board members. Was there an increase in scholarly citations to publications by, for example, Lisa Miller, Director of the Spirituality & Mind Body Institute, now that ISHAR was well-established. Surely, publications by her and others that missed the attention of the scientific community in the past would be more easily spotted with ISHAR in place. The short answer is, no, there were no detectable increases in citations in the past two years.


So, I ask a basic question: In what way does ISHAR have any meaningful relevance?

 

[ISHAR]

So far, I have heard claims of what ISHAR was supposed to accomplish and claims of what it is not now. It is not a service to Wikipedia. Ok, I get that, and so we cannot look to Wikipedia for evidence of any impact by ISHAR.

Where can we look? Two years is long enough that we should expect something of substance.

I did a web search for associations with notable universities. A claim was made those were already in place. I found nada. There isn't a university, reasearch center, nor faculty member out there won't brag about their external affiliations with credible organizations. I found nada.

I did a web search for links to ISHARonline.org. If it is an important resource to the research community, then it should get online recognition by the academic community. I found nada. Well, I did find some dated hype from pop-culture sites like Prevention Magazine, but they were at least two years old and pushing a non-academic, non-scientific agenda.

I also did a google scholar search on some of the ISHAR supervisory board members. Was there an increase in scholarly citations to publications by, for example, Lisa Miller, Director of the Spirituality & Mind Body Institute, now that ISHAR was well-established. Surely, publications by her and others that missed the attention of the scientific community in the past would be more easily spotted with ISHAR in place. The short answer is, no, there were no detectable increases in citations in the past two years.


So, I ask a basic question: In what way does ISHAR have any meaningful relevance?

I've addressed aspects of our functionality elsewhere, but I'll summarize here some of what we do:

• We concentrate, cross-reference, and summarize research about various mind-body-environment topics (public facing).
• We provide formatted, filtered datasets of thousands of studies for systematic reviews and meta-studies (private facing, and if you don't think this is a relevant service you've never performed a systematic review).
• We coordinate collaboration between interdisciplinary approaches to various topics (public and private facing).

What we don't do:

• Require our users to advertise or promote our site in return for help or collaboration.
• Require people who use our services in research to link to us in their research references (the references are the actual studies cited)
• Use ISHAR as a platform to specifically promote our Advisory Board's work (we actually discourage this as a conflict of interest).

I think I've been pretty patient and accommodating on this forum, despite encountering numerous insults, mockeries, and general hostility. Acknowledging that this question was reasonable, this is the last post I'll respond to about our function. I've answered that, several times in several different ways. We do not need to prove our solvency here, we have already done so with our collaborators. One can only respond to so many accusations (several from posters who didn't even read the sections they were condemning) before it becomes obvious there is no end to this scenario.

For similar reasons I will not be sharing the names and/or contact information of our collaborators. It is not an accident I have been vague. I do not trust that they will not be harassed or pressured. After all, I was despite coming here as a courtesy to try and be helpful. Part of ISHAR's purpose is to provide a safe place for researchers to explore controversial ideas. That matters more than correcting insinuations that we are lying in some way.

I believe there are some people on this forum who mistake zealotry for skepticism and hostility for high standards. I've seen the futility of trying to appease such people when I watched the Chopra Foundation try to address these issues:

1. Deepak Chopra is just a spiritual guru who does no science!
2. Here's some books and papers on scientific topics.
3. He has no idea what he's talking about, or he'd have co-authors!
4. Here are several books and papers cowritten with professionals in the field.
5. Those people are all woo-pushers, if he was serious he'd work with leaders in the field!
6. Here are several papers and studies conducted with Nobel Laureates.
7. Those people have gone crazy since they won their Nobels, if those studies were worthwhile they'd have been published in a major journal!
8. Here are studies published in a Nature affiliated journal with Impact Factor of 5.538.
9. It's a shame that all these scientists, Nobel Laureates, and journals know less about science than me.

Which is to say, I now doubt anything I could say or show here would make much of a difference. I have seen little evidence that evidence matters as much as assumptions.
I'd love to be proven wrong.

 

[GT/CS]

Does anyone have the wambulance gif handy?