![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The bodygraph image keeps being removed but it has a non-free-use / fair use rationale: "Screenshot of the program Maia Mechanics Imaging Software (MMI) released by Jovian Archive. Medium-resolution promotional image similar to that obtained from marketing materials on official Jovian Archive website. Screenshot shows the primary use of the application, which is to generate astrological charts called 'bodygraphs.' This particular promotional image is useless because it shows the bodygraph of a sample person, therefore it has no value for potential users of the software, who would only be interested in generating bodygraphs for specific people. For this reason, images of a given bodygraph generated by the software (as shown on their official webpage, and marketing materials) are purely promotional." fissionchips303 ( talk) 16:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
The most important word "pseudoscience" (in my opinion) has been removed from the article on August 12, 2020 by Upisupanddownisaround. There was no discussion, although after the word "pseudoscience" there were references to authoritative sources, which were also removed. After that, there were several edits, but no one restored the information about pseudoscience. I don't quite understand: is the opinion that Human Design is not a pseudoscience - is it already a consensus? — JustApex ( talk) 11:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The claim that human design is a pseudoscience needs citation. Reason= The Skeptic's Dictionary as of 2021 does not include the term 'Human Design' anywhere on its webpage. The second purported source, on Weebly.com, is a blog post that claims that none of the components of Human Design have or WILL ever undergo any published scientific analysis without giving any citation or detailed explanation for why this is the case; it is a Weebly blog post, cannot be considered a reputable source, and is being removed. In due response to user
User:2601:8C3:8080:C300:D5F5:FE4C:3EB3:30BC : you can believe whatever you want, sir. The sources being cited are not reputable and even something as simple as the term
pseudoscience needs proper citation because of the substantial and immediate implications of this term.
24.205.45.193 (
talk)
00:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I have finally found the "newsletter" on Skepdic.com, NOT part of their dictionary itself, where Human Design is mentioned. http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter1103.html. The newsletter simply scoffs at the issue and makes fun of it. It offers no reasoned, cited, or even detailed reason why Human Design is a pseudoscience, and simply plays ad hominem logical fallacy games while pretending to actually find it useful, no less. This newsletter cannot be considered a reputable source on Wikipedia. 24.205.45.193 ( talk) 00:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The biggest issue I see here is that it is small enough not to be mentioned as a pseudo science by major medias. The only easily available sources are the one from its proponents, and it’s logical: money is made thanks to this practice. It has all the characteristics of pseudo scientific practice. It uses science jargon to back its results without proving the validity of the results first. The sources to fill this article are at least as dubious as the sources that state it is a pseudo scientific practice. Grandjean.q ( talk) 20:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Sure it is "It combines astrology, the Chinese I Ching, Judaic Kabbalah, Vedic philosophy and modern physics." All these are pseudo-science. "Combining" with physics is standard procedure for all this new age bullshit. This article is a disgrace. 84.44.235.48 ( talk) 16:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Just for the record: There is a new article in the Journal für Gynäkologische Endokrinologie/Schweiz - Journal of Gynaecological Endocrinology/ Switzerland (in German) - about the Human Design System, written by a Professor of gynaecology; maybe this is helpful to find out the current state of the scientific discussion around HDS. https://springermedizin.ch/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/art_10.1007_s41975-021-00182-3.pdf -- Tine ( talk) 16:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I was hoping to find a history section here. I'll keep hoping. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The bodygraph image keeps being removed but it has a non-free-use / fair use rationale: "Screenshot of the program Maia Mechanics Imaging Software (MMI) released by Jovian Archive. Medium-resolution promotional image similar to that obtained from marketing materials on official Jovian Archive website. Screenshot shows the primary use of the application, which is to generate astrological charts called 'bodygraphs.' This particular promotional image is useless because it shows the bodygraph of a sample person, therefore it has no value for potential users of the software, who would only be interested in generating bodygraphs for specific people. For this reason, images of a given bodygraph generated by the software (as shown on their official webpage, and marketing materials) are purely promotional." fissionchips303 ( talk) 16:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
The most important word "pseudoscience" (in my opinion) has been removed from the article on August 12, 2020 by Upisupanddownisaround. There was no discussion, although after the word "pseudoscience" there were references to authoritative sources, which were also removed. After that, there were several edits, but no one restored the information about pseudoscience. I don't quite understand: is the opinion that Human Design is not a pseudoscience - is it already a consensus? — JustApex ( talk) 11:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The claim that human design is a pseudoscience needs citation. Reason= The Skeptic's Dictionary as of 2021 does not include the term 'Human Design' anywhere on its webpage. The second purported source, on Weebly.com, is a blog post that claims that none of the components of Human Design have or WILL ever undergo any published scientific analysis without giving any citation or detailed explanation for why this is the case; it is a Weebly blog post, cannot be considered a reputable source, and is being removed. In due response to user
User:2601:8C3:8080:C300:D5F5:FE4C:3EB3:30BC : you can believe whatever you want, sir. The sources being cited are not reputable and even something as simple as the term
pseudoscience needs proper citation because of the substantial and immediate implications of this term.
24.205.45.193 (
talk)
00:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I have finally found the "newsletter" on Skepdic.com, NOT part of their dictionary itself, where Human Design is mentioned. http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter1103.html. The newsletter simply scoffs at the issue and makes fun of it. It offers no reasoned, cited, or even detailed reason why Human Design is a pseudoscience, and simply plays ad hominem logical fallacy games while pretending to actually find it useful, no less. This newsletter cannot be considered a reputable source on Wikipedia. 24.205.45.193 ( talk) 00:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The biggest issue I see here is that it is small enough not to be mentioned as a pseudo science by major medias. The only easily available sources are the one from its proponents, and it’s logical: money is made thanks to this practice. It has all the characteristics of pseudo scientific practice. It uses science jargon to back its results without proving the validity of the results first. The sources to fill this article are at least as dubious as the sources that state it is a pseudo scientific practice. Grandjean.q ( talk) 20:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Sure it is "It combines astrology, the Chinese I Ching, Judaic Kabbalah, Vedic philosophy and modern physics." All these are pseudo-science. "Combining" with physics is standard procedure for all this new age bullshit. This article is a disgrace. 84.44.235.48 ( talk) 16:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Just for the record: There is a new article in the Journal für Gynäkologische Endokrinologie/Schweiz - Journal of Gynaecological Endocrinology/ Switzerland (in German) - about the Human Design System, written by a Professor of gynaecology; maybe this is helpful to find out the current state of the scientific discussion around HDS. https://springermedizin.ch/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/art_10.1007_s41975-021-00182-3.pdf -- Tine ( talk) 16:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I was hoping to find a history section here. I'll keep hoping. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)