Talk:Biorhythm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is not a protoscience becasue it has not changed much since it's inception and it Does not follow scientific protocolsGeni 11:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's clearly a pseudoscience. All the books I read about it are written by completely innumerate proponents. All the evidence they propose is based on math errors that give wonderful stories if you want to amuse mathematicians. The concept itself is a magical and numerological idea. --Hob Gadling 18:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
I changed "lasts around 23 days" to "lasts 23 days; same with 33 and 28. The reason:
If the first rhythm were 23.01 days (about a quarter of an hour more than 23 days), 100 rhythms (about 6 years) would take 2301 days instead of 2300. So, after 60 years, the rhythms would be 10 days off, and all the anecdotes used to defend biorhythms would be worthless. So it really has to be 23 days, plus/minus only very few minutes. Otherwise the whole body of "evidence" is inconsistent. Not noticing this is one of the many innumeracies of biorhythm proponents. --Hob Gadling 19:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Too much content
Do we really have to have the fully "calculation method" in an encyclopedia? It should be removed if a good reason is not stated not to. --80.221.13.43 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Biological ryhthms do exist in plants, animals, bacteria, humans, etc, (it's basically chronobiology) but the science is NOT what is described in this article (which is pseudoscience or numerology). This needs to be re-written with scientific content.
I think the calculation method is worth including for the simple fact that all information is of value, unless it is mis-information. However I have concerns about the neutrality of this article.
[edit] external links need to be cut down
Wikipedia isn't a link directory nor a place to advertise sites, so it's not really appropriate for an article to have 20+ external links, much less 10 nearly identical ones linking to different biorhythm calculators. --Delirium 13:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like it was taken care of; thanks! --Delirium 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
