Jump to content

Talk:Ecopsychology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Lauriec (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Lauriec (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 14: Line 14:
It assumes that this theory is scientifically sound, completely correct, and contains absolutely no criticism of ecopsychology. It is also written in a confusing and obscuring style, which makes it very difficult for most readers to comprehend.
It assumes that this theory is scientifically sound, completely correct, and contains absolutely no criticism of ecopsychology. It is also written in a confusing and obscuring style, which makes it very difficult for most readers to comprehend.
[[User:Lord Patrick|Lord Patrick]] 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
[[User:Lord Patrick|Lord Patrick]] 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
The article probably does need a section called 'controversies', as in the [[evolutionary psychology]] article. Rather than can it, why not do it? I'd be happy to see some editing from non believers, so we have some detail to improve. Cheers--[[User:Lauriec|Lauriec]] 08:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The article probably does need a section called 'controversies', as in the [[evolutionary psychology]] article. Rather than can it, why not do it? I'd be happy to see some editing from non believers, so we have some detail to improve. Cheers--[[User:Lauriec|Lauriec]] 08:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Agreement; this article reads as a shill for the links appended at the end. Normally there's a fair correlation between the content of the article and the amount of external links given, but not here. [[User:24.151.128.208|24.151.128.208]] 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreement; this article reads as a shill for the links appended at the end. Normally there's a fair correlation between the content of the article and the amount of external links given, but not here. [[User:24.151.128.208|24.151.128.208]] 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:34, 13 April 2007

Shamanic counselling is quite different than Ecopsychology, though the two operate under similar principles. An analogy would like saying that a lamp is synonymous with electricity. Solace098 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't linked to from the article on the founder. Secretlondon 11:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


You mean Theorore Roszak? It's linked now (not by me).

I think this Ecopsychology article overrates the book Ecopsychology (1995). The term and idea of e. is older than that. John Scull's excellent article makes that clear. - Jussi Hirvi (8 Dec. 2005)

This article is massively biased.

It assumes that this theory is scientifically sound, completely correct, and contains absolutely no criticism of ecopsychology. It is also written in a confusing and obscuring style, which makes it very difficult for most readers to comprehend. Lord Patrick 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article probably does need a section called 'controversies', as in the evolutionary psychology article. Rather than can it, why not do it? I'd be happy to see some editing from non believers, so we have some detail to improve. Cheers--Lauriec 08:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement; this article reads as a shill for the links appended at the end. Normally there's a fair correlation between the content of the article and the amount of external links given, but not here. 24.151.128.208 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Can I just add that this is nothing new or unscientific, in its truest sense. See Goethe's writing on what a true science should encompass. Or, better yet, see Laura Sewall

  • Sight and Sensibility: The Ecopsychology of Perception*

Tarcher/Putnam, 1999.

Man, woman, wake up. It's not just about what comes in, but what's coming out too.