![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Sxeptomaniac |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 332 Joined: From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 3,542 ![]() |
I had really hoped they'd keep themselves under control after FeloniousMonk's desysopping a while back, but they appear to be back at it again.
Cla68 seems to have stirred them up by trying to add a "Scientific theories" category to the Intelligent Design article. Don't think it was a really good idea, but it doesn't justify the reaction. Now Hrafn has decided to tag various articles as being Creationism stubs, including James Tour, a guy who has specifically said that he's not an intelligent design supporter. He signed a petition, so therefore he's a creationist, even if he says otherwise, right? Never mind that he's done nothing else related to creationism, and all indicators are that he never will. Now Guettarda's gaming to try to keep the tag in (since when is the burden of evidence on the one removing material from a BLP?). I really did not want to get involved with these people again, but I'm not letting them go back to messing with BLPs like they did in the past. This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac: |
![]() ![]() |
lilburne |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Chameleon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 890 Joined: Member No.: 21,803 ![]() |
Back in the mid 80s I was the duty chemist in a chemical factory on the night shift. I had a young guy as an assistant which they used to call "Basher" as he could be found testifying in the shopping mall at the weekend and doing the same in the pubs in the evening. Nice enough kid and we sort of got on OK - until this one night when there was little to do, and he was bored and wanted something to read. Without thinking I gave him the latest issue of the "New Internationalist" to read, it was sponsored by Oxfam, Save The Children, and Christian Aid, amongst others.
Anyway he took one look at it, put it down, walk out of the lab and I never saw him for the rest of the shift, also he didn't speak to me for a month. The reason was that particular issue had articles on dinosaurs and fossils. |
Doc glasgow |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,138 Joined: From: at home Member No.: 90 ![]() |
Back in the mid 80s I was the duty chemist in a chemical factory on the night shift. I had a young guy as an assistant which they used to call "Basher" as he could be found testifying in the shopping mall at the weekend and doing the same in the pubs in the evening. Nice enough kid and we sort of got on OK - until this one night when there was little to do, and he was bored and wanted something to read. Without thinking I gave him the latest issue of the "New Internationalist" to read, it was sponsored by Oxfam, Save The Children, and Christian Aid, amongst others. Anyway he took one look at it, put it down, walk out of the lab and I never saw him for the rest of the shift, also he didn't speak to me for a month. The reason was that particular issue had articles on dinosaurs and fossils. A long time ago a picked up a book on Creation Science - it sat unread on a bookcase among thousands of others. When studying in a liberal university, a friend was doing an essay on a related topic, and I offered to lend her the book for her interest. When I brought it in for her, I was seen with it in the common room. What happened next astounded me: liberal, broad-minded people, responded with scorn and anger to the very idea anyone would even read the book. It was book-burning anger. I am NOT (and never have been) a proponent of Creation Science, but it struck me that had I entered that same liberal common room with a copy of Mein Kampf people would have given me the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps even applauded a broad reading scope of even objectionable books. Intelligent liberals tolerate horoscopes, Scientology, new-age mantras, feng shui, and any other amount of unscientific mumbo-jumbo. Why is it that ID so causes their blood to boil? If they are so confident of the strength of the intellectual argument against it, why are they so bloody defensive? (Even here in the UK, where there is no history of interference with education.) Kelly is correct, if the anti-ID position is so strong, then gaming the article should be utterly unnecessary. |
Cyclopia |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Abominable sociopath, kool-aid addict. ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 159 Joined: From: Cambridge, UK Member No.: 14,160 ![]() |
Intelligent liberals tolerate horoscopes, Scientology, new-age mantras, feng shui, and any other amount of unscientific mumbo-jumbo. Why is it that ID so causes their blood to boil? If they are so confident of the strength of the intellectual argument against it, why are they so bloody defensive? (Even here in the UK, where there is no history of interference with education.) Kelly is correct, if the anti-ID position is so strong, then gaming the article should be utterly unnecessary. Well, I personally do not tolerate horoscopes, Scientology, and almost all unscientific mumbo-jumbo. But you have a good point. The answer -at least for myself- is that while it is easy to show that horoscopes and Scientology are nonsensical BS, Creationism and ID instead dangerously disguise as science. And disproving their arguments, while easy for the scientifically educated person, is not so easy for an educated person but with a weak scientific background. They can look convincing. Often to disprove many of their apparently reasonable arguments you have to resort to very long explanation and introduce concepts which are not immediately trivial -and many people will prefer of course to listen to the easier,clearer (but deeply wrong) version. |
Cla68 |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,763 Joined: Member No.: 5,761 ![]() |
The answer -at least for myself- is that while it is easy to show that horoscopes and Scientology are nonsensical BS, Creationism and ID instead dangerously disguise as science. And disproving their arguments, while easy for the scientifically educated person, is not so easy for an educated person but with a weak scientific background. They can look convincing. Often to disprove many of their apparently reasonable arguments you have to resort to very long explanation and introduce concepts which are not immediately trivial -and many people will prefer of course to listen to the easier,clearer (but deeply wrong) version. That is part of the problem with the IDCab. They seem to believe that most of Wikipedia's readers are idiots and wouldn't be able to decide for themselves that ID is silly unless the article assuredly tells them that it is. If I say on the ID talk page, "Present the article without taking a side and let the reader decide on their own which is true" and I've said this many times on many different articles that were being attacked by POV-pushers, the answer is always silence or a personal attack. |
Cyclopia |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Abominable sociopath, kool-aid addict. ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 159 Joined: From: Cambridge, UK Member No.: 14,160 ![]() |
The answer -at least for myself- is that while it is easy to show that horoscopes and Scientology are nonsensical BS, Creationism and ID instead dangerously disguise as science. And disproving their arguments, while easy for the scientifically educated person, is not so easy for an educated person but with a weak scientific background. They can look convincing. Often to disprove many of their apparently reasonable arguments you have to resort to very long explanation and introduce concepts which are not immediately trivial -and many people will prefer of course to listen to the easier,clearer (but deeply wrong) version. That is part of the problem with the IDCab. They seem to believe that most of Wikipedia's readers are idiots and wouldn't be able to decide for themselves that ID is silly unless the article assuredly tells them that it is. If I say on the ID talk page, "Present the article without taking a side and let the reader decide on their own which is true" and I've said this many times on many different articles that were being attacked by POV-pushers, the answer is always silence or a personal attack. The point is that if you don't say that ID has no scientific value and it is rebuked by overwhelming scientific consensus, you are withholding crucial information from any description of ID. And it's not matter of being an idiot. Lots of arguments of ID proposers (or creationists) can make apparent sense if you don't have a proper scientific education (e.g. the famous canard that the second principle of thermodynamics is at odds with evolution). Unless of course your interpretation of NPOV is the following: http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-co...irt_designs.jpg |
taiwopanfob |
![]()
Post
#7
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 643 Joined: Member No.: 214 ![]() |
The point is that if you don't say that ID has no scientific value and it is rebuked by overwhelming scientific consensus, you are withholding crucial information from any description of ID. You are misrepresenting Cla68's position. The lot of you are. QUOTE And it's not matter of being an idiot. Lots of arguments of ID proposers (or creationists) can make apparent sense if you don't have a proper scientific education (e.g. the famous canard that the second principle of thermodynamics is at odds with evolution). See? Yer a fucking idiot who just wants to pick stupid fights on Wikipedia. NONE of the ID arguments make any sense at all. Zero. Nada. Not a single one. Further, it takes almost nothing to refute them. Milton Roe's commentary here is an example, and it's clear he isn't even trying. Indeed, as far as I know, not one experiment has had to be conducted, not one tiny bit of research, not an iota of analysis is required to totally demolish ID. It's all utterly transparent bullshit, as every last fucking non-Discovery Institute source on the matter unambiguously states. Why? See Kelly Martin's remarks for the answer. QUOTE Unless of course your interpretation of NPOV is the following: http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-co...irt_designs.jpg You are absolutely blinded by your own incompetence. ID is not the problem. Idiots who accept anything at Wikipedia are not the problem . It is your intellectually dishonest engagements with Cla68 that are the problem -- they put the anti-ID position in a poor light. Why can't you and your other ninnies just fuck off Wikipedia, Wikipedia Review and most any other places? Your attitude, fearmongering, and related does more harm than good to the otherwise honorable anti-ID cause. Seriously: Save The World By Fucking Off. Those who know ID is a stinking shithole of pseudoscience are begging you! |
Cla68 |
![]()
Post
#8
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,763 Joined: Member No.: 5,761 ![]() |
I think it was Doc Glasgow who said in relation to the attempts by some editors to add negative information to the beginning of the Messianic Judaism article that an article about any religion, belief system, or philosophy should first describe it the way its followers believe it, without any pejorative opinions. Then, any criticism or contrary opinions can be given in the article, followed by any rebuttals to that criticism. I agree with this approach as it gives the topic a fair presentation, but without omitting anything. The article's lede should be structured the same way.
My impression, however, is that the anti-ID editors are afraid that someone would only read the positive presentation of the ID theory and not read the criticism section. They really shouldn't worry about it. I know it's anecdotal evidence, but most people I know who use Wikipedia to help them with school or to look up something tell me that they only read the article's intro, then skip down to the references section. As long as the intro summarizes the main points of the article, readers should be getting a fair presentation of the article's content. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |