Anti-ID group (IDCAB) begins again?, Can't tell you how much I missed that friendly bunch. Options

[Sxeptomaniac]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Kelly Martin]

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.

It would be nice if we could, in fact, assume that Wikipedia readers are not idiots. I would like to believe that the people who go to Wikipedia are the sort who want to learn something, enough that they'll read closely and completely and think about what they read. Unfortunately, I think that actually holding that belief would be profoundly delusional. Certainly it's not true of far too many of Wikipedia's editors, and in general I think most of the people looking at Wikipedia at any given time are simply trying to get enough information to answer their homework assignment, or to win a bar bet; they're not going to be doing a complex critical analysis of everything they read. The simple fact is that most people are idiots, or at least willing to act as if they're one unless specifically prodded not to. Wikipedia's readers are generally credulous; they uncritically assume that what they read on Wikipedia is true. If they didn't, they wouldn't be reading Wikipedia at all.