Remember a little while ago when I wrote about an evolutionary mutation seen in E. coli in the lab?
Well, the author of the study, Richard Lenski of Michigan State University, was not-so-subtly attacked on his work by Andy Schlafly, a creationist. The initial letter, by Schlafly, is pretty rude. Lenski replied, and Schlafly replied to that… and then it gets hilarious. Scientist Lenski hands antiscientist Schlafly his head, and it’s a wonder to behold.
Funny thing is, it’s discussed on Conservapedia, a wiki full of spin, incredible distortions of reality, and outright antiscience. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. So I won’t link to it there; I’d rather not have to soak my website in hydrogen peroxide afterwards.
But the really funny thing is the whole story is now up on RationalWiki, with some back story too.
And the funniest thing is, it appears that the Conservapedia folks left some critical things out, and then erased the evidence. Heh. That pesky Ninth Commandment again.
Anyway, RationalWiki looks pretty cool, so I’ll have to poke around there.
Tip o’ the test tube to Josh Asher.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:29 am
To be fair and honest, Rationalwiki is pretty much as openly bias to it’s viewpoint of the world as Conservapedia is (and Conservapedia doesn’t hide it’s bias), just slightly less eloquent and simply more open about it.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:47 am
That was a very impressive piece of writing by Dr Lenski. Very impressive.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:48 am
To paraphrase our president, Lenski was awesome.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Ah, I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Haha, hilarious reading, thanks.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:11 am
I love the little footnote about handwashing.
I hope his God commands him to follow that rule.
…so few people do…
June 26th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Hate to simplify such a glorious moment, but I feel its entirely appropriate to say…
OWNED.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:26 am
How fun that Schlafly has inadvertently gotten positive attention for Lenski’s work.
And Conservapedia censoring the link in Lenski’s response, just because it was to Rational Wiki…lovely.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:39 am
“You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.”
Gosh, I hope Lucas doesn’t send his lawyers after you for the blatant plagiarism!
I’ve learned over the years that there really is no such thing as stupidity, only ignorance. Ignorance is OK, because it can be corrected with appropriate levels of correct information. Unfortunately, ignorance plus arrogance looks an awful lot like stupid… as Schlafly so aptly demonstrated…
June 26th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Schafly was rude. Why is rudeness bothersome–because it comes from Schafly? I notice a lot of the folks on the other side of the aisle are also less than polite–so what?
I think we should all be a little cautious with Wikipedia and its never-ending spin-offs. Conservapedia is biased, but it appears that RationalWiki is too. Bias is bias, and it’s not less biased just because it leans your way.
And Conservapedia censoring the link in Lenski’s response, just because it was to Rational Wiki…lovely.
Isn’t that sort of what BA did?
June 26th, 2008 at 9:45 am
@ DennyMo
I disagree… there’s ignorance and then there’s willful igorance. And in my book, willful ignorance = stupid.
And then there is of course, simply lying when you know the facts. That’s not stupid… it’s evil.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:55 am
@ David D
Oh, come ON, man… what in the HECK is your point, anyhow??
OK, OK… I’ll bite.
Let’s for a moment ignore the mediums on which these accounts occured, and just look at the *unabridged* exchange between the two. Regardless of where this conversation was posted, Schlafly wasn’t just rude. He was condescending, insulting, arrogant, demanding and ignorant.
And Lenski replied politely. And Schlafly repeated his unwartented beliggerence, and then Lenski let him have it. And rightfully. And since the conversation is relevant to the scientific community in that it defends an extremely important piece of research against baseless, pre-supposing claims, the content and the tone of the exchange between the two is relevant, and certainly worth commenting on here. So again… what in the heck is your point?
And to address your last point, tell me you understand the difference between “censorship”, which is what was done at Conservapedia, and refusing to include a hyperlink while still including the proper reference to the source. PLEASE tell me I don’t need to explain to you any further why your comarison of Phil’s comment to the blatant censorship displayed on Conservapedia is simply ridiculous.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:01 am
… ’scuse the typos…
My fingers clearly need to go on a diet.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:07 am
David D.
I would argue that what BA did was different. He told us the site in question was Conservapedia, but deigned to provide a link. Assuming they didn’t have the obvious .com/.net/.org domain name, a minute on Google would show us the page, and assuming their search engine is moderately efficient, it would probably take another minute to pull up the page on Dr. Lenski. The RationalWiki page also includes a note as to where the info can be found. I’d guess that the plain text instructions rather than a link is to minimize inclusion of it in search engines, while still giving web users the ability to find the source. People from this blog could check the BA’s assertion of what happened, and get Conservapedia’s & Mr. Schlafly’s take on the matter, with only a bit more work than a hyperlink. Then the reader can decide which source is more credible and what the points of contention are.
The folks at Conservapedia (presumably Mr. Schlafly) just removed one of Dr. Lenski’s sources from his letter and replaced it with[Ed.: citation omitted due to spam filter], giving no indication as to where someone could get the information. Or what that link even contained — even printing it as [Ed: RationalWiki's page on "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"] would give bystanders enough to check Dr. Lenski’s sources, and decide for themselves if his comparison was valid (Or, heck, if his sources are legit.), without increasing RationalWiki’s profile in search engines. Even if the average Conservapedia reader would instantly assume that any RationalWiki page was too biased to be believed, it still puts the decision on the reader, without Mr. Schlafly imposing his own view.)
June 26th, 2008 at 10:08 am
I thought I was pretty clear about my point.
Schlafly wasn’t just rude. He was condescending, insulting, arrogant, demanding and ignorant. So what? Is that any different from the behavior of, say. PZ, or many posters here? Is it okay if PZ or BA is arrogant or insulting, but not okay from Schafly?
That’s my point.
Another point I made is that the bias is evident in both Conservapedia and RationalWiki. When bias is blatant, objectivity suffers extensively. I am sure you understand that concept perfectly well (Faux News, MSNBC).
And yes–I understand the difference between censorship and what Phil did. You do not need to explain it further to me. If my comment is ridiculous to you, then so be it.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Bias isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and certainly not when it’s backed up by facts.
Unless, of course, by “bias” you mean “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason,” in which case, it’s not bias.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:13 am
So what? Is that any different from the behavior of, say. PZ, or many posters here? Is it okay if PZ or BA is arrogant or insulting, but not okay from Schafly?
Well, he was rude, insulting and most importantly WRONG. When Lenski replied the second time all Schafly could do was pull the “See! See! He’s a meanie head to me so that discredits him!” trick. Which is pathetic.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Sigh.
To clarify, I said, “Isn’t that SORT OF what BA did (emphasis added)?” i didn’t claim that it was EXACTLY what he did. It was just a comment, that’s all.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Of course what I did here was different. What Conservapedia did was make a huge mistake, and then tried to erase their tracks. I simply didn’t link to a site that I don’t want to promote.
RationalWiki is biased toward reality. So is that in reality a bias?
Conservapedia is full of blatant errors, some of which are so obvious that it’s difficult to think that they were made accidentally. The astronomy sections are laughably incorrect. Well, they’d be laughable if people didn’t take them seriously.
And David D, as usual, you don’t get it. Schlafly attacked Lenski. Out of the gate he was rude and arrogant. If I appear that way (and I don’t think I do, unless it’s by people I’m taking aim at), it’s because I am reacting to the attacks on science and reality made by creationists. I didn’t start this attack. When I see creationists and other false prophets trying to distort reality, then I do react. It’s not gonna be all sweetness and light. A slap on the face deserves at least a scolding. Turning the other cheek is a simplistic solution and won’t work in the long run; the attacker may simply slap someone else who can’t defend themselves as well.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:17 am
And no, what Conservapedia did is nothing at all like what I did. Do you not understand the difference between Conservapedia trying to cover up their own lie, and me simply not directly linking to one?
June 26th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Anything or anyone that promotes willful ignorance as not only a virtue, but a downright necessity, is deserving of nothing but ridicule. As the posted exchange clearly shows, there are some people that are simply immune to reason.
Attempting to engage these people on any rational level is an exercise in futility. There comes a point in which the only productive course of action is to demonstrate, in great detail, just how grossly incorrect and deliberately dishonest a person can be. Not for the benefit of that person, mind you, but for the benefit of anyone else who may be reading.
If such an action precludes harsh ridicule in order to get the point across, then so be it. People like Schlafly are so far removed from the intellectual high road that it’s effectively useless to attempt civility with them. They deserve to be exposed as dishonest, self-delusional hacks in the most blunt and brutal way possible.
I sure as hell have no intention of tolerating willful ignorance, and I see no point in going out of your way to coddle the self-imposed delusions of others.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:24 am
RationalWiki is biased toward reality. So is that in reality a bias?
My personal argument in regards to their bias is how they write about particular subjects or individuals. It isn’t written as an objective encyclopedic answer but as an overtly bias (for or against) article, replete with encyclopedia dramatica cliche style internet terms (see their article on Andrew Schlafly for example). I guess I was hoping when I first found the site, it was going to be an encyclopedia about subjscts in regards to rationalism and written with a objective, professional viewpoint, that just isn’t so, not even close.
Not saying what they are doing is wrong, simply biased, like conservapedia is biased.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
RationalWiki is biased toward reality. So is that in reality a bias?
Pffffttt! Reality has a well-known liberal bias. Everybody knows that Phil!
June 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
and last point, David D…
if this site were anything at all like Conservapedia, you and your initial comment would be gone.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:28 am
i wrote so much in response to this and it all sounded so uneducated but mostly i am just a little stunned.
whoa.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I love those replies. Great read, brightened up my day a bit. As far as the whole rudeness thing goes I am happy that Lenski was civil. I see this whole conversation going on about rudeness so I got to throw my two cents in out of being bored at work
. Being rude towards a person can work great in a debate. It can make them angry and that clouds judgment. If you are arguing your point against a counter point in front of other people this makes the angry person seem less coherent to the crowd. When trying to convince a person though being rude rarely will work. You just raise their hackles and again cloud their judgment with anger. If you are trying to press your point and educate a person clouding their judgment is frankly a poor way to teach them. Also as far as the ignorance versus willful ignorance goes I think it can be a tad more complicated than that. I think there are some stupid people out there but I believe most are just ignorant. Scientific method and critical thinking need to be taught to a person. Just arguing a point and showing tons of evidence while the other person refuses to believe isn’t necessarily willful. I feel that most those people have never learned to think critically. Showing them something that they don’t have the understanding to grasp may be taking to many steps. Perhaps the scientific community needs to take a step back and start with trying to show examples of critical thinking that wont counter their religion. Plant a seed and crack their proverbial mental walls. A tiny touch of doubt and thinking can go a long ways.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Wow, it takes real nerve to argue with a researcher who has spent so much time studying a specific topic. It’s just sad that scientists have to put up with this kind of garbage. Disagreement of opinion and of interpretation are an important part of science, but blatant disregard for experimental evidence is just pathetic. It really upsets my stomach to think about this continuing on in the future, but it will. sigh.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:32 am
No there is a huge difference. Schlafly was not just rude and arrogant, but 100% wrong and proud of it.
He is the definition of the Arrogance of Ignorance and to some aspect, the Dunning-Kruger effect.
He is so wrong about everything in this story, has been shown to be wrong and yet can not fathom the fact that is might be wrong. He expects to be treated differently that any other scientist (of which he is not mind you) requesting the data and / or the actual bacteria. His motives are obvious and he does not meet the criteria that Dr. Lenski laid out in a way more polite form than Schlafly deserved.
Pointing out his arrogance and lack of credibility and most importantly his lack of credentials is not the same thing was what Schlafly did. Even if we are laughing when doing it.
When people act like fools and especially arrogant, rude, incorrect and lying fools it is not the same to point that out and laugh critically at their failure.
Secondly to your points, which BA has addressed, Conservapaedia is a storehouse of some of the most factually incorrect articles one can find on the Internet. They are willfully ignorant, lying and or distorting facts across the board. If you find the same type of things at RationalWiki, please feel free to point them out and I will happily point at them as well.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:35 am
typos here too… I know par for the course for the Rev. Chimp
that any other scientist = than any other scientist
June 26th, 2008 at 10:35 am
If conservapedia needs an entry on Poe’s Law, it could just link to this.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:39 am
There is no such thing as unbiased.
Human beings aren’t capable of being perfectly objective.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Wow. I never heard of that Schlaly guy before (and apparently with good reason), but he sure stepped in it didin’t he.
What’s the old saying? I’d rather be quiet and be thought an idiot than speak and prove it.
Something like that. Seems appropriate in this case.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:45 am
If you are biased towards reality, then you are biased–that’s pretty simple. As BMcP notes, it’s not that RationalWiki believes in evolution, or quarks, or the universe being billions of years old. It’s how they write about it. I expect an “encyclopedia” to be as neutral as possible, and not wear their political/social/religious badges on their sleeves. When that kind of bias is evident, I begin to question the objectivity of the “encyclopedia” and its authors. I expect that most of us do. I CERTAINLY question Conservapedia’s objectivity, and I question the objectivity of RationalWiki, without questioning the reality of evolution, or the Standard Model.
I do believe it is possible to engage people in polite dialogue about skeptical and rational topics, even if some people find it hard to do (and yes, BA, sometimes you do appear rude and arrogant, even to people you are not aiming at). I always thought people like Sagan, and Gardner maintained (for the most part) an air of civility that is decidedly absent from someone like PZ.
I also agree that in the face of rudeness, politeness breaks down fairly quickly.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:45 am
There is a difference between bias and outright lying, distortion and omission.
His mother Phyllis Schlafly is an old school conservative who has been around for a long time in the right wing political movement. Big and ERA amendment/ anti-feminism activist. Look her up.
She even got a mention in a Dead Kennedy’s song.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:47 am
sigh….. and ERA = anti ERA
I’d ask for a preview button here BA, but in all honesty my history proves I wouldn’t use it.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Conservapedia has nothing on sex. I get redirected to gender.
Anyway, the National Science Foundation conducted a survey in which 71% of the participants did not know what DNA is. I suppose a significant portion of the remainder do not accept DNA on a fundamental level as it provides the mechanism for evolution.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Halcyon, you are absolutely correct, we can only aim to minimize bias. However, the peer review process can identify potential bias and move to correct it, thus furthering the objectivity of the study in question. However, bias is not the issue here; the issue is deceit. Schlafly has been shown to be wrong, yet he continues his assault against Lenski. When all forms of reason and logic fail, ridicule is truly the only proper response. How many times would you logically explain that the sky is blue to someone who insists that it is actually green (with no evidence whatsoever mind you) before you simply laugh at them?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Thanks 74westy.
I was once under the impression that the whole of conservapedia was a satire of the right wing. It is now apparent that several contributors with not-so conservative views have a little fun.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:02 am
“If you are biased towards reality, then you are biased–that’s pretty simple.”
Bias. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
There is no such thing as “biased towards reality”. Bias is when you lean towards a certain perspective or outcome; reality is not a perspective my friend, it is simply reality. Thus, you can not, by definition, be biased towards reality. You can be biased towards something which explains reality, such as biased towards panspermia, meaning that you tend to lean towards that answer when examining data.
Moreover, bias will typically (although not always) lead to false interpretations. Since reality is not an interpretation, you can not be biased in this manner either. You may be biased towards a particular mechanism (such as panspermia), but this does not change what is real.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:04 am
@ David D…
I could really care less about an encylopedia’s “objectivity”, or its bias… as long as they get the facts right. Conservapedia clearly fails in that regard… as far as I can tell, RationalWiki has not done so… please point it out if they have, and I’ll be happy to admonish them equally.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I don’t think RationalWiki thinks that it is an encyclopedia, or a source for anything other than the three points it has on its front page.
Really, accusing it of being an encyclopedia seems misplaced, a wiki isn’t always Wikipedia, nor is it striving to be.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Um, reality is reality. It’s not an opinion.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I’m all for not linking to Conservapedia. Quoting them is one thing, but I wouldn’t link to them either.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Just a thought… the Creationists have Jonathan Wells on their side – a qualified biological scientist according to his degree. They should set him up with a lab and allow him to analyze Dr. Lenski’s data.
I can see a lot of possible good, or at least potential amusement coming out of that.
Best of all, it would give Dr. Wells the opportunity to show the scientific community the value of his biology credentials – we skeptics would sure be put into our place once and for all!
June 26th, 2008 at 11:37 am
[...] Richard Lenski’s E. coli, 1 : Andrew Schlafly, Compete Zilch A peek above our garters to Dr. BA for [...]
June 26th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Well, let me rephrase a couple of things here.
“RationalWiki is biased towards reality” is not my quote–it is BA’s. Maybe you should ask him exactly what he meant when he said that.
I agree that humans are biased, as much as we try to sometimes get past that. As I pointed out, it’s not about bias towards the Law of Gravity, for example, or bias about evolutionary biology. Yes–reality is reality. It’s how you write about different subjects in an “encyclopedic” context. This is where I see the bias in RationalWiki. BY the way, from the few articles I have perused, COnservapedia is not just biased, but fraudulent.
Speaking of RationalWiki, their article on Islamofascism is incorrect when it states that Islam and Fascism have had nothing historically to do with each other (they have ). Its article on Obama is clearly biased, and glaringly incomplete (no mention of Rev. Wright). I think it is important to get ALL of the facts straight, and not just pick and choose which facts you want to believe in (that sounds like a creationist tactic, doesn’t it?).
June 26th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Hmm, types of ignorance …
* willful igorance
* arrogant ignorance (sounds to me like wilful)
* plain ignorance or perhaps innocent ingnorance
* blissful ignorance
* compound ignorance … see http://highlydistractible.blogspot.com/2007/10/condition-known-as-compound-ignorance.html
…
Any others?
I sense a 2×2 matrix coming on …
(awareness/unawareness of ignorance) .v. intent (honest/dishonest)
…
June 26th, 2008 at 11:54 am
@ David D.
I’ll have to look into the Islam and Fascism thing… if it’s just flat out factually wrong, then I’ll call them out for it. If it’s a matter of opinion… well, that’s not a “facts” issue.
As for the Obama article… YOU find it to be biased and incomplete. Great… that’s your opinion. Is it factually incorrect? That’s what we asked for, and what we are admonishing Conservapaedia for… You picking and choosing the articles you disagree with as far as their presentaiton and delivery is not the same thing as simply being wrong.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Well I’d find the difference is that willful ignorance is just the state of being ignorant and not accepting any evidence that should change your position.
Arrogance of Ignorance is being the above definition and being convinced that you know better than the people who actually are the ones who should know better due to their education, experience, involvement in peer groups of the same. So it takes Willful a step further.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
@Rev .. darn I need a bigger matrix
June 26th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
First glance it is incredibly poorly written (not that I’m some linguistic superhero), but it does not get any facts wrong on a cursory glance. Yes it leaves out Wright, but there are many other facts it doesn’t include as well. I do however think that leaving out Wright is a mistake, and probably was not included on purpose especially considering they mention Hagee and Parsley on McCain’s page.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
OK… looked up the “article” on Islamofascism on RationalWiki. It’s hardly an “article”. It’s a two line statement and goes as follows:
The point here is that is that Islam has as much to do with Fascism, historically, as Social Darwinism has to do with Darwin’s research (evolution). You can use the term as descriptive, but it doesn’t mean that Social Darwinism can be equated at all with Darwinists, anymore than people of Islam can be associated with fascists, as a whole. Sorry, I’m having a hard time agreeing that this one is “factually incorrect”.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
#Celtic_Evolution said: I could really care less about an encylopedia’s “objectivity”, or its bias… as long as they get the facts right.
Except sometimes Rationalwiki allows themselves to slide away from any rational based information at all in some articles, for example, this paragraph on Andrew Schlafly:
He worked as an electrical engineer at the applied physics laboratory of Johns Hopkins University in Scaggsville, MD, and married Catherine Agneta Kosarek at a Roman Catholic ceremony in 1984, after hypnotizing her at a party. Miss Kosarek was a fourth-year medical student at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and also a Princeton graduate.[9]. As of March, Andy hasn’t stated whether he has stopped beating her or not, even when asked repeatedly[10]. They successfully mated twice[11] and spawned two more conservative stormtroopers for the cause, Andrew Jr. and little (how could they…) Phyllis Schlafly.
Outside the mention of his former occupation and the fact of his martial status, who his wife is and the name of their children, how much of the rest of this paragraph one would honestly think is based on any rational basis or empirical evidence? Some of this is just slander, wife beating, implying they had sex all of two times. This is the type of article writing that weakens the site’s other, much more relational based arguments on various subjects, and damages their credibility as a source.
How difficult would it have been to write about this guy and keep it to the facts?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Please keep in mind the difference between
Bias: I will find this way if the evidence permits.
and
Prejudice: I will find this way regardless of the evidence.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
CE–
I randomly linked to the article on Islamofascism. I found a link (on Wikipedia!) to Mohammad Amin al-Husayni to be very interesting.
I also looked at the Obama article (I couldn’t find one on Wright–is there one?); again, the facts are correct but disturbingly incomplete; how could you write about the man and not write about the controversy which DOMINATED his campaign a few months ago? Kind of like saying Yassir Arafat was a Noble Peace Prize winner, without mentioning the PLO.
I have not had a chance to explore either Conservapedia or RationalWiki much further.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
It’s not whether the “article” is short or long–they got the facts incorrect.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Perhaps Richard Lenski just should have referred Andy Schlafly to the AngryAussie.
NSFW!
June 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
@ BMcP
Hmmm… I’ll have to admit… i don’t really care for the gratuitous slander in what you posted…
HOWEVER…
If you please refer to the top of the page, you will see, clearly stated, the following disclaimer:
“This article is possibly the work of a parodist or vandal!”
I think this clearly indicated to the reader that the article is meant to be a parody and not taken literally or seriously…
And I really don’t want to argue the point to death… I’ll concede that RationalWiki site certainly has a slant to it in the exact opposite tilt of Conservapedia. But that was never really the point.
In my original response to David D, I specifically prefaced my point by saying,
“Let’s for a moment ignore the mediums on which these accounts occured, and just look at the *unabridged* exchange between the two. Regardless of where this conversation was posted, Schlafly wasn’t just rude. He was condescending, insulting, arrogant, demanding and ignorant.”
And I still stand by that statment.
In making a comparison between the two sites, my point and that of BA and others is that regardless of its level of snark, or its obvious political slant, RationalWiki does at least keep its major points, at least where science is concerned, based on facts, in direct contrast to Conservapedia, which is just a deep well of willful scientific ignorance. Whether or not it goes a bit overboard where opinions are concerned or leans in a particular direction (it clearly does), is not really the issue here.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
@ David D
Agreed… and I still have yet to see where you’ve shown me that that has happened in this article. So instead of picking on the point I made about the article’s length, give me some original thought or debate on why the point I made concerning the article is wrong.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I kinda have to side with David on this one.
RationalWiki is sickeningly biased. Reason is good, science is good, don’t get me wrong, I’m on your side, but I clicked “random page” on RationalWiki and was given the entry on Mitt Romney. Here’s the opening:
Mitt Romney is a candidate for the GOD, GUNS, AND GAYS Party nomination in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election.
(emphasis added. “God, Guns, and Gays Party” links to their article on the Republican Party). That is flat out offensive. I am neutral to God and Gays, but I do believe in our constitutional right to bear arms. And I’m a registered republican (who plans to vote democratic this time around).
Now tell me, does that kind of language properly represent rational thinking? No. It’s closed minded and biased.
——————
I would have much rather commented on how awesome that smackdown was.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
ANd my point is that when bias (however you want to define that word) creeps in, the “facts” get lost. I’ll stand by that statement.
I hope you don’t feel that because RationalWiki leans in your direction that they are somehow more objective, and less likely to get the “facts” wrong, than some other biased viewpoint. They may not engage in the kinds of fraud that Conservapedia does, but even my superficial examination reveals that they factually incorrect, and at least prone to emotional hyperbole.
I wonder how much more effective and accurate they would be if they didn’t engage in slander, or if they didn’t let their ideological slant block their fact checking.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Republicans will not be happy until ALL opposition is silenced.
Be afraid, America; be very afraid.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I don’t see you answering Celtic_Evolution’s charge about the Islam / Fascism historical connection.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
@ David D
No… certainly not… that’s just not how I operate. And truthfully, I will readily admit that the more of this site I uncover, the less If find that I would use it, going forward, as “reference material”. I think it’s clever in places, and has some good anti-science rebuttel material, but it’s a bit gratuitous and ad-hom in others.
And I will agree with your point and that of a few other posters… that if the site were to tone down its personal attacks and stick to subject matter and fact, it could be alot better. As I’ve said all along, if I find the content on their site to be questionable, I will say so. And in may places I do, and I am saying so. So I’d say it’s good for a read or a laugh, or some interesting and fun left-wing commentary, but not one I’d add to my “science” or “reference” library.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Wow Daffy, thanks for that broad, sweeping generalization.
I’m a Republican, always have been.
I want small government.
I want personal liberties (for ALL people, not based on some demographic).
I say to each his/her own, so long as it doesn’t harm others or severely negatively impact society.
So tell me, which opposition is it that *I* want silenced?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
@CE–
Did you check out the “fact” that al-Husayni met with von Ribbentrop and Hitler, and had extensive contacts with Italian military, and spent much of the War in Berlin?
The article’s “fact” was that Islam and Fascism do not “historically have anything to do with each other.” That “fact” is obviously incorrect.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I’d also like to point out, David D, that my initial problem with your initial post had nothing to do with the merits of comparing one site with the other.
My issue was with your insinuation that BA was acting with the same lack of integrity as conservapedia in its censorship practices, and your seeming defense of Schlafly’s position. I’m not sure how it degraded into a debate over the merits of the two stie’s content… hmmm… that seems to happen alot around here…
June 26th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
@ David D
I’ve already made this point, David D… just like with Social Darwinism, just because members of the Islamic movement took an interest in fascism does not mean that you can equate Islam with fascism… historically Islam goes back quite a bit further than fascism, if I recall. Using a term like “Islamofascism” and then trying to tie the two together historically is as innaccurate and misplaced as using “Social Darwinist” and tying it to Darwinism and evolution.
Once again, you are confusing opinion with fact.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
AJ,
I am genuinely sorry if you are offended. But you belong to a party that is systematically destroying the very foundations of our government and society. I am glad you disagree with them…but the fact that you are still a member–at the very least—gives tacit approval to what they are doing.
If it makes you feel any better, I am only marginally less hostile to partisan Democrats. The next time they control all 3 branches of government it will almost certainly be just as disastrous; and I will rant about them just as much, believe me.
Anyone who surrenders their intellect to a political party is kidding themselves, IMO.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I think I addressed my incorrect insinuation about BA. I did not defend Schafly’s position; I was simply surprised that given the amount of rudeness that passes for discourse around here (and other places in the science/anti-science realm) someone had called out Schafly on his behavior.
As far as the fact thing, both you and Rev BigDumbChimp asked about the site being factually incorrect:
“if it’s just flat out factually wrong, then I’ll call them out for it.”
I’m waiting for you to make that call.
Like you, I am continually amazed at how a post about one topic can lead into an incredible labyrinthine discussion about something else. Pretty cool actually–I learn a lot.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
@ David D..
If you’re referring to your continued insistence on believing you are right on the “Islamofascist” issue, I have already made my point about that, and have yet to hear you properly show me how it is factually incorrect, or address the point I made. So no dice on that one.
If you are referring to the site’s content in general, i think I’ve already made my thoughts on it pretty clear here.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
“And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion.”
Best line, IMO
June 26th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Shoot… I blew the HTML tag… I was pointing here:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/06/26/oh-snap-creationist-smackdown/#comment-185185
June 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
#Evolution of the Celtic variety said:
“Let’s for a moment ignore the mediums on which these accounts occured, and just look at the *unabridged* exchange between the two. Regardless of where this conversation was posted, Schlafly wasn’t just rude. He was condescending, insulting, arrogant, demanding and ignorant.”
And I still stand by that statment.
I do not disagree with your assessment of Schlafly’s crude approach when writing to Lenski. It is sadly obvious that the only desire on Schlafly’s part is to discredit the wok because he has already made up his mind on the validity of Lenski’s work, even before seeing the data, despite the fact it is questionable Schlafly will really understand and can interpret the data correctly. I admit I can’t, I don’t have the biology training and knowledge to interpret the data knowledgeably even if I can understand the basic summary. The difference is, I don’t pretend I can.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
@ BMcP
Well said… and in a brilliant move on Lenski’s part, he painstakingly points out, fairly and reasonably, the requirements and qualifications one must have in order for him to turn over his research materials… which serves the dual purpose of both setting reasonable ground rules under which any body or institution may review the work and have access to the materials, and making the clear and vivid point that Schlafly doesn’t come anywhere near meeting those qualifications.
Perhaps the most brilliant, yet subtle, move in the entire reply.
Just beautiful.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
@AJ “I want personal liberties (for ALL people, not based on some demographic).
I say to each his/her own, so long as it doesn’t harm others or severely negatively impact society.”
Since when does the Republican party espouse these beliefs? Thier positions on gay marriage and abortion would make me tend to believe otherwise.
Personally I have no political affiliations. I think the electoral system is very broken. It was never designed to be this abomination of a 2 party system we try to pass off as democracy.
Back on topic…congrtulations to Lenski for a well thought out if not utterly brilliant response to this hobgoblin who didn’t even have the decency to read his paper before attacking it’s conclusions. Bravo!!!
June 26th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
@CE–
Sorry there was a bit of cross-posting there.
Here’s the issue as I see it. Islamofascism is nothing more than a political term, an epithet if you will that some people use in a political argument. There is no doubt that Islam is far older than the political movement known as fascism. Although there are different definitions of fascism, the idea of a repressive government in which individual freedoms are denied and the state is run by a dictator seems to be a common thread. I think there are and have been a few Islamic governments that have fit that mold. Is it so hard to conceive of a fascist state that is Islamic? Again–I think it is just a descriptive term. It does not mean that Islam and fascism are the same thing; I have never claimed such an equality.
But I was charged with finding a factual inaccuracy on RationalWiki. I have already discussed what the article very clearly said. Contrary to the two movements historically having nothing to do with one another, I provided a link which documented such facts. And, as i mentioned above, surely an Islamic dictatorship could be classified as fascist. I think I have done what I was charged to do.
I want to emphasize: that is not the same as equating Islam with fascism.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
To address some of the points that have been made about RationalWiki:
First and foremost we are not trying to be an encyclopedia. As others have said not all wikis are trying to be wikipedia. We are exactly what we describe our self as, an experiment in Web 2.0 technology combing all the elements of blogs, forums, and collaborative editing.
Like any of these mediums of communication the quality and the focus of our pieces will vary. The fact that we have 30-40 authors who have written our “core” pieces with massively different styles, interests and skills will make our work even more variable. We have several thousand articles, ranging from two sentence stubs to some very in depth analysis. We welcome discussion and debate openly, we encourage it, any problems one has with any element of the site can be brought forward and will be taken seriously and discussed. But like any internet community sometimes things get heated.
I also don’t really think of us as a “source” for anything per say, but as a potential starting point, or repository of information that can summarize and link to relevant sites that would be true “sources.”
Don’t hold us to the standards of an encyclopedia or reference source, I think that might be unfair. We are a blog and forum who through collaborative effort sometimes creates interesting ideas, or interesting articles. We are an Internet community.
I certainly welcome feedback on how we can be better, or what we should be about. And I appreciate much of the comments made so far.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
But Richard Wolford, sometimes the sky is black…
:^)
June 26th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Daffy,
Absolutely correct. Partisan militants are equally bad, regardless of the party.
Jumping back to the issue of bias (and thus CE/David D): once you recognize the biases inherent to Conservapedia/RationalWiki (or Fox News, or Al-Jazeera, or even Ebert and Roeper), then their bias doesn’t matter. You can easily sift through their articles and separate “useful” from “useless.” Feel free to inform others of the bias, sure, but you (e.g. David D) are beating it into the ground unnecessarily. Besides, you shouldn’t get all your information from a single source anyway. The internet has more than a couple of sites on it – use it well and you’ll be able to pick up a pretty reasonable summary without having to start an argument in the comments section of somebody’s forum.
Jumping a step further back to the issue of politeness… There have been numerous discussions in various forums, conferences, and the like about the relative importance of politeness in science v. antiscience debates. No consensus has been reached. What separates PZ from Schlafly is that PZ is largely that PZ generally goes after one set of people – he posts attacks on vocal proponents of the opposing extreme, people who say glaringly stupid or crazy things (in his view) in a public setting, and people who are firebrands for the other side. He doesn’t walk into churches just to argue with or insult the pastor or congregation. He doesn’t write letters to random Christians demanding that they engage in an argument and prove their God’s existence. In other words, he doesn’t write rude letters to the Creationist version of Lenski (if there is such a thing). His purview is his blog and responding to people who directly contact him, which makes him easy to ignore if you want. Similarly, if you find Phil to be insulting, condescending, or any other negative -ing, you can simply not read his blog. He (probably) won’t send you a nasty letter demanding that you provide him with your life’s work…
Schlafly, on the other hand, has essentially done just that. He asked Lenski to empty his drawers and cupboards for Schlafly so that he might have a chance of finding something that he could twist into a weapon against Lenski…and he did it in a rude tone to boot. The difference is subtle, I suppose, but to me it’s pretty clear. You don’t have to like either one of them – I find Schlafly’s actions a bit tackier. Aside from that, as mentioned in other posts, he’s just wrong about so many things (especially in science).
What the rest of us enjoy so much about this whole affair is that Schlafly went after Lenski directly with his rude tone, was politely directed towards the appropriate sources, then tried it again (more rudely) and was resoundingly smacked down. He tried to bully the unassuming honor student and failed in spectacular fashion.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Hmmm…sorry, I got longwinded again.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I thought the ding-ding kickage delivered would be the highlight of my day. Really, it would have been enough. But then, while I was reading it and smiling my face off, my new memory foam mattress was delivered.
Clouds parted, birds sang, my kids squealed with joy and all was right with the observable world.
Then, I come in here to read the comments and see this:
“…biased towards reality”
First I thought, “that’s my new tagline”.
Then I remembered FDA approved fluorescent ink being used for tattoos.
I am SO gonna get one once I come up with a design.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
@ tmtoulouse
Thanks for the clarification and the insight… it’s appreciated. And i really do enjoy the site…
CE
June 26th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Trees are neat and my brother has a cat. That is all.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“Although there are different definitions of fascism, the idea of a repressive government in which individual freedoms are denied and the state is run by a dictator seems to be a common thread.” — David D.
Right here is where you left the rails. Authoritarianism and even Dictatorship is not the definition of Fascism. By your mistaken definition Communism could be Fascism (now there is an idea to make your head ache).
Fascism is a form of Authoritarianism. But that doesn’t mean every form of Authoritarianism is Fascism. Go look up Fascism in a good history book. If it doesn’t discuss Corporatism, you’re reading the wrong book.
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini
June 26th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Has anybody else looked at the RationalWiki site? I hit a few “random pages” and then it sent me to one for Ronald Reagan. Wow- it manages to be lame and completely unfunny at the same time (and really, what is the need to make fun of a dead President anyway? Bush- game on. But a guy that’s dead already?).
There’s a lot of junk on the internet, think RationalWiki might be headed that way.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
So… RationalWiki is like Encyclopedia Dramatica for people who get off on thinking they’re better in tune with reality than everyone else. Gotchya.
I’m still more of a “what’s sauce for the goose” sort; Schlafly had it coming and got what he implicitly asked for: disrespect. However, it was Quiet_Desperation who said in another thread that “ideology dissolves skepticism on contact” and I think that can be extended to rationality as well. We can be rational beings, but even when we are being as rational as possible we still come to different conclusions; thus, turning rationality into some sort of ideology is lethal to said rationality as it turns into “my opinion is TRUTH and your opinion is LIES” when both are merely opinions.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Yea but when opinion meets observable, repeatable evidence it often reveals who is “more wrong.” And calling an idea wrong that is clearly terribly wrong is not merely an opinion. And it is particularly bad when people are broadcasting some of the worst ideas people have had, that have been shown to have no evidence, as right. There in lies the niche for publicly decrying ideas, for calling BS for what it is.
Creationism, and homotoxicoloy, and chelation therapy for autism are NOT on equal footing with biology, medicine and behavioral therapy. Yet there are people pushing these ideas all over the place leading to serious consequences.
A few other points, hitting random article is probably not the best way to asses the potential for our site. Check out the best of rationalwiki articles.
I don’t think the encyclopedia dramatica comparison is fair either. The fact of the matter is that a great deal of the internet is spent pushing idiocy of all kinds in all fields as fact. Analysis and refutation based on evidence can’t hurt.
We are not perfect, but we are trying to do SOMETHING, and the good news is that anyone who wants to can help out.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I’m gonna have to coin a neologism here:
andy (adj.): utterly defeated
June 26th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
“Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope’
- P. J. O’Rourke
Oh please. In my 45+ years of experience with this stuff, 99.8% of the opposition in this country to spaceflight comes from the (ostensibly) secular left wing. I’ve heard it a million times; every dime spent exploring Mars could be better spent feeding the poor or saving an endangered rodent.
I think it was A.C. Clark who said “the discovery of extraterrestrial life is ticking like a time bomb in the foundations of Christianity”. Well, the surest way to discover that life is to send some field scientists to Mars with picks and shovels. So why is it that the two administrations in the last 40 years that supported manned Mars exploration were evil, stupid, retro-brained Republicans? And for that matter, you may have noticed Barney Frank with his anti-mars exploration amendment (H.R. 5672) is a VERY secular democrat?
So it goes.
BTW, this is why I haven’t bothered to go hang out with Phil at the skeptic’s get-togethers. I’m bored with the usual bunch of atheists (of which I am one BTW) from the Boulder Left Wing sitting around bitching about the Christian right while the crystal astrology-homiopathic-BoBo-Walden Pond crowd gets a pass on their anti-science agenda.
-SJ
June 26th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I saw this elsewhere yesterday, and noted then that Lenski is my new hero. I reread the exchange today, and he is still my hero.
My favorite part is when Lenski skirts around the problems with giving (an incompetent) layman a huge sample of E. coli. I don’t know the applicable rules, if there is any, but I can imagine that a bullet proof Material Transfer Agreement would be a necessity. Hilarious!
June 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
David D said:
> Schafly was rude. Why is rudeness bothersome–because it comes from Schafly?
I personally think rudeness is bothersome because it is unnecessarily impolite. In this particular case, it is significant because Schafly pretends to be interested in scientific/rational discourse with Lenski over his scientific findings. If he really is rationally involved, then it doesn’t make much sense to be rude and accusatory toward someone from whom you want something.
It’s also significant because Schafly claims to be a Christian, but his behavior does not seem much like the behavior claimed by Christians to emulate Christ.
> I notice a lot of the folks on the other side of the aisle are also less than polite–so what?
True, and they need to buy a clue as well. However, the specifics of this incident are what make it relevant. Schafly is trying to request data from Lenski in order to provide independent review. However, his approach seems most likely to anger Lenski and thus discourage Lenski from complying. So unless Schafly’s true intent was something other than getting the data, he did a poor job of accomplishing his intent. Now one might speculate that his true intent was not to get the data, but rather to either draw Lenski into trading insults or refusing to comply, and thus then challenge Lenski for being non-scientific and further Schafly’s accusations of fraud. Maybe even file a complaint with the National Academy of Sciences. Of course, that is blatant speculation on my part. I base it on the tone of his emails and the references to the PNAS and the heavihanded repeat of the requirement to provide data.
Regarding RationalWiki, I find it juvenile and rude. If the intent is to provide a rational response to Conservapedia, they would be much better suited to the tone of TalkOrigins than what those articles show. This site is rather more Conservapedia-bashing than Rational discourse. It gives “rational” a bad name.
Cheyenne said:
> what is the need to make fun of a dead President anyway? Bush- game on. But a guy that’s dead already?).
Reagan is something of a Republican icon, so that makes him fair game.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Well first Schafly first mis read the first article on Lenskis reasearch, stating that three new proteins were created. What actually happened was thre different mutations happened in one of the 12 petri dishes. Lenski also said he was willing to give samples of the bacteria when someone with the proper equipment and training to handle the samples asks for them also that person or group has to tell them what they are planning to with the e. coli.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I was sort of heartened by the number of people telling Schafly to, in essence, “shut up, you lost” on the Conservapedia talk page. A glimmer of hope that not all are lost to reason.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Off-topic: Can anyone explain the (seemingly US-specific) phrase “Oh, snap!” as used in the title of this post?
Googling didn’t help much, other than to inform me that it might be helpful to have watched Saturday Night Live at some time in the past.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
David:
Isn’t that sort of what BA did?
Um, no.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Stuart said:
Off-topic: Can anyone explain the (seemingly US-specific) phrase “Oh, snap!” as used in the title of this post?
It’s from the awful TV show “That’s So Raven”. From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That’s_So_Raven
‘During the Title card at the end of each sequence in season four, Raven said “Oh, Snap! Yep, tha’s me” to the camera while in the other three seasons the only thing Raven said was “Yep, That’s me”.’
June 26th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
“Oh, Snap!” is also what Joy says on My Name is Earl. I don’t know which one came first. (I hadn’t know that Raven said it, too.)
June 26th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Fry said “Oh, Snap!” in The Why of Fry.
Volume 4, Episode 10.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
To “Oh, snap!” posters:
Thanks – but what did mean when they said it?
More confusion: On wikipedia “Oh, snap!” redirects to “Biz Markie”. Huh?
Slightly more on-topic:
I had a look at Conservapedia – their article on “Atheism” is much longer than their article on “Jesus Christ”, which seem strange for a site with a bible-verse-of-the-day on its main page. Re. “Atheism” article – love the first listed of the “Reasonable Explanations for Atheism”: moral depravity. If only!
June 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Must learn that anything enclosed in angle brackets will be treated as an HTML tag, and make me look silly. Bad, blog software, bad.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Just a side comment/personal beef regarding several comments here and elsewhere concerning the level of expertise required for someone to understand or not understand a scientific paper.
A properly written scientific paper should be clearly understandable at least on some level by anyone capable of reading. Of course comprehension of specific details will vary from reader to reader, but the general focus should be obvious to everyone. The reader should, after finishing, be able to say “this is what the author wanted to do, this is roughly how he did it, and this is what he found out in the end. I may be somewhat fuzzy on the specifics because of my lack of expertise in the subject, but I was not confused at any time.”
The above only applies to readers who are willing to be receptive to the subject, of course.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
@ amphiox…
OK… I hear what you’re saying… but I’m confused as to which comment / personal beef you are referring to, specifically, in this thread. Can you elaborate?
June 26th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Conservapedia’s Reach: A Back-of-the-Envelope Study…
…
June 26th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I love how the talk page on it at Conservapedia has just been been nuked… :S
On the subject of Conservapedia, I just posted an back-of-the-envelope “analysis” of their reach, and to be honest I don’t think it’s just Lenski that owns them – by my calculation the criticism in the science blogosphere will get a far bigger audience than their efforts.
See: Conservapedia’s Reach: A Back-of-the-Envelope Study
Re: amphiox
Sorry, but I don’t entirely agree with you. Yes, it would be nice if all papers were understandable to the lay reader, and I certainly try to do it with mine where I can, but ultimately if you’re not familiar with, say, doctoral-level immunology you’re going to find it almost impossible to make sense of a lot of papers on it, and there’s only so much effort it’s worth us putting in when we’re specifically writing for an audience of other scientists in the field.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Snap! is usually a word that means “Cool,” or “Alright.” Meaning something positive, as in:
Him: “You’ve just won a million dollars.”
Her: “Oh, snap!”
Sometimes its used as a zinger:
Him: “As payment, we could just hang out together.”
Her: “That would be punishment, not payment. Oh, snap!”
June 26th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Well, I’ve had a bit of a poke around RationalWiki. I reckon, much as their hearts seem to be in the right place, they spend far too much time trying to be “clever” and “witty” and the articles (the ones I looked at, anyway) mostly end up pretty lame.
Conservapedia, on the other hand, is a hoot! They actually use the old quote “There are no atheists in foxholes” as proof of the inconsistency of ATHEISTS. And under the article “Professor values”, they have the following:
“Professors’ common value system typically includes… unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge (for example, the dogmatic promotion of the theory of evolution)…”
That’s right – we are beset by evil biology professors who claim unjustifiable expertise in the field of biology.
I’m adding Conservapedia to my favourites!
June 26th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
I’m revising my opinion. Conservapedia is like a box of glazed doughnuts. You get a sugar rush from that first bite, but after three or four bites you start to feel sick…
June 27th, 2008 at 5:54 am
“Snap” is an expression commonly used in Scotland (and elsewhere in the UK, I believe) to denote co-occurrence, such as when two people say the same word simultaneously. It’s particularly common in online chats.
For me, it also nicely captures the brainbump that happens when I read a comment that directly echoes what I was thinking just prior (I get this a lot when reading a discussion of creationist nonsense; when the writer is of Lenski’s quality, I take it as a very good sign and reward myself with a Snapple).
June 27th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Re: “Oh, snap!”
In the U.S., particularly among college-age students, “oh, snap!” typically means that someone just got owned, zinged, dissed, made fun of, etc., as in Greg in Austin’s second example, and that the zing was at least a little clever.
June 27th, 2008 at 7:58 am
@ colin
that’s a pretty apt analogy… feeling more or less the same way… seems like a good premise, just too overboard in places to live up to its moniker of “rational”.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:17 am
@Celtic_evolution
It was just a peripheral thought triggered by comments regarding Schafly’s ability/inability to understand Lenski’s paper(s), if he actually bothered to read them in good faith.
@Martin
You make a good point. It’s just that I think scientific papers, like everything else written down, is a form of literature, and good literature is accessible at some level to everyone. A layperson doesn’t have to be made to understand everything in the paper, just the broad outline. For example, for Lenski’s paper, I think any layperson reading it should be able to grasp that:
1. Bacteria were grown for 20 years in order to see if and how they would evolve.
2. Ding! They DID evolve.
3. One group evolved an ability to eat something called citrate which they couldn’t eat before.
4. The evolution of this ability depended on earlier changes which, by themselves, had no observable effects at the time.
Nothing more in depth than that.
Would you be willing to compromise and say that the abstract, at least, should be understandable to a layperson?
(PS A paper describing an important and well researched finding that is hard to understand is still good science even if it is “bad” literature. We should judge scientists on the science they do. But it would be a bonus if they could write well also, and we should all strive to do so as much as we can afford to.)
June 27th, 2008 at 8:44 am
> Yea but when opinion meets observable, repeatable evidence it often reveals who is “more wrong.”
One then also crosses from the territory of talking about opinions into talking about facts.
> Creationism, and homotoxicoloy, and chelation therapy for autism are NOT on equal footing with biology, medicine and behavioral therapy.
These are all discussions of fact, rather than discussions of ideological opinon (right versus left). “Vaccines cause autism” is a truth-value statement, and truth-value statements are related to facts (in this case, “vaccines cause autism” is for all intents and purposes false). This is distinct from “vaccines are bad,” which is a statement of opinion as ‘bad’ is a subjective statement and thus open to infinite interpretation and justification. I can say “vaccines are bad because they cause autism,” which is an opinion based on an belief in an inaccurate truth-value statement, or I cay say “vaccines are bad because they reduce child mortality and thus increase population pressures,” which is an opinion based on a belief in an accurate truth-value statement.
> I don’t think the encyclopedia dramatica comparison is fair either.
You have your axe to grind against enemies of the faith (i.e. the right, the ‘irrational,’ et al), they have their axe to grind against who they percieve to be their enemies (i.e. furries). You yourself have claimed that objectivity is not your goal; either you are aiming to be objective (and thus non-ED), or you are not (and thus similar to ED in that you’ve an unapologetic editorial slant). As we both recognize that one can’t be both at the same time, let us be intellectually honest and at the very least unapologetically assert said editorial slant rather than continue the slant then assert it doesn’t exist.
> The fact of the matter is that a great deal of the internet is spent pushing idiocy of all kinds in all fields as fact. Analysis and refutation based on evidence can’t hurt.
No argument. However, as has been pointed out, maintaining an obvious editorial slant does tend to make one seem less than rational, which seems harmful to the stated statement of trying to be a bastion of reason on the Internet. If, on the other hand, you’re just more of a collection of like minds who are swayed by reason on the one hand and happen to use selective evidence to support ideological opinions on the other, congratulations, you’re human. This is not a bad thing. It simply means that perhaps RationalWiki was a poor choice of name as far as philosophical honesty is concerned (sort of like how the “freethinker” movement isn’t really).
On the other hand, a greater deal of the internet is spent being jerkoffs to opinions and ideologies we don’t like, so it’s not like RW is being accused of high treason or perversion here.
> We are not perfect, but we are trying to do SOMETHING, and the good news is that anyone who wants to can help out.
Perfection is not requested nor required. I merely report the result of my own observation and evaluation; if my opinion troubles you, well, the choice is you as a free operative agent to make the edits necessary to fix that. If my opinion does not trouble you, then tell me to go take a flying leap and I will gladly do so, as we actually have no conflict.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:39 am
>Perfection is not requested nor required. I merely report the result of my own observation and evaluation; if my opinion troubles you, well, the choice is you as a free operative agent to make the edits necessary to fix that. If my opinion does not trouble you, then tell me to go take a flying leap and I will gladly do so, as we actually have no conflict.
I am not going to tell you to take a flying leap, it is interesting to get an “outside” perspective and I am always looking for ways to improve. Just trying to provide our perspective on the issue as well. Basically if our purpose was to provide a neutral point of view then why bother? Wikipedia does that okay and any problems that wikipedia has we would too. Our editorial slant, and policies and expectations for articles and users is what makes us different and I hope carves out a different niche.
But I thank everyone for their comments. Anyone that has specific criticisms is of course welcome to alert us to them at anytime.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
FWIW: Fascism predates Islam by about 700 years: the Romans invented it. As far as I can tell, the system that comes closest to “Islamo-fascism” is the Baath party rule in Syria and formerly in Iraq. However, this is mostly a secular movement that just happens to take place in a predominantly Islamic part of the world.
Similarly, 20th century fascism took place in a predominantly Christian part of the world, but we don’t call it Christiano-fascism. Conflating the two terms indicates some form of causation, while in these cases there is only correlation.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
@ Pieter Kok
Fair point about the Romans and Fascism… although I was referring to fascism in its modern form as first coined by Mussolini. One could certainly assert that imperial Roman ideology could best be described as fascism… it’d be an interesting debate, anyhow.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I understand, tmtoulouse, and I’m glad I can help a little. So long as people admit their slant, I’m not usually bothered by it. Still, one can’t be perfectly “rational” and randomly accuse conservatives of paedophila just for the lulz, neh?
So long as the topic in question isn’t controversial… ah well.
@ Pieter Kok and C_E
My thoughts are that “fascism”–the word as an actual linguistic construct–is a political cringe word with no real meaning, seeing how often it’s conflated with police, oppressive, and totalitarian states in general. x-fascism has nothing to do with economics, instead capitalizing on the connection to aggressive ideological totalitarianism.
And there’s no denying that there are aggressive, ideologically totalitarian Islamic societies in the world today.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Centipede, I agree: Usually the F-word is the last stop before Godwin’s law takes effect. Nevertheless, “fascism” has a precise definition, and when all parties to a discussion are (explicitly) aware of this, there is no reason not to use it.
On the topic of objective vs. biased: It would be possible for RationalWiki to include both (clearly marked) editorial articles as well as articles that aspire to the highest degree of objectivity. There are newspapers that operate on this principle (not in the UK, by the way).
June 27th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Pieter:
Yes, marking would be fair. Like I said, I have no problem with bias so long as it is admitted. There are very few things more annoying than a zealot that ignores his own zeal while railing upon the zeal of others.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
@Amphiox:
I sort of agree. I definitely agree with the aim, but I’m not sure it’s always possible. Sometimes making it accessible to scientists and to the layperson can be mutually exclusive (and I do try and do both). But certainly with a bit of googling, none of my abstracts are too impenetrable.
The key problem is probably terminology. I might refer to a simulation as “stochastic” rather than saying that it has a random element. Stochastic is a more efficient way of communicating the concept in a journal (and in a searchable electronic database), but also is useful for foreign scientists who don’t know much English, but know the terms associated with their field. So that’s what I mean when I say that sometimes making a paper more accessible to a layperson can be at the detriment to making it clear for other scientists. I do try though.
As a side note, there are initiatives like researchblogging.org, which aggregates posts by dozens of bloggers like myself, who write posts about peer-reviewed research in a more accessible way.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Wow, I wish my writing and mind were as organized as Lenski’s appears to be from reading his replies.
This research is as impressive as finding water (ice) on Mars. What scares me is, if we don’t stop the Creationists attack on evolution and biology, it seems to me geology and astronomy will be next. I have saying, do you realize that whenever anyone mentions a date that is earlier than 4000BC, they are committing heresy?
June 29th, 2008 at 9:57 am
[...] Phil Platt at the Bad Astronomy blog, I saw this smack down of Creationist Andy Schlafly by Richard Lenski of Michigan State [...]
August 28th, 2008 at 2:59 am
Snark snark snark! Dudes stop giving this homeschooler highschool project (Conserv”a”pedi) the fracking time of day and get on to better uses of your time, seriously.
like wiping out Religion?