Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Hersch » Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:56 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Darwin did indeed get a great many things wrong -- as almost all early theorists do in any discipline. The work he helped start (with others) has since been built on create a more accurate picture and understanding of speciation and the role of competition in the evolution of plants, animals, and whole ecosystems.
I'm still not buying "role of competition." It is not plausible to me that evolution is an arbitrary or accidental process, and that we got to the point we are at by amazing luck, or by the organisms with the really cool genetic material "winning the competition."

If you fellows want to debate LaRouche's ideas, debate this:
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat Jun 01, 2013 11:49 pm

Hersch wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:Darwin did indeed get a great many things wrong -- as almost all early theorists do in any discipline. The work he helped start (with others) has since been built on create a more accurate picture and understanding of speciation and the role of competition in the evolution of plants, animals, and whole ecosystems.
I'm still not buying "role of competition." It is not plausible to me that evolution is an arbitrary or accidental process, and that we got to the point we are at by amazing luck, or by the organisms with the really cool genetic material "winning the competition."
Natural selection is the most verified scientific theory in the history of mankind.

You are lost.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by DanMurphy » Sat Jun 01, 2013 11:56 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Hersch wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:Darwin did indeed get a great many things wrong -- as almost all early theorists do in any discipline. The work he helped start (with others) has since been built on create a more accurate picture and understanding of speciation and the role of competition in the evolution of plants, animals, and whole ecosystems.
I'm still not buying "role of competition." It is not plausible to me that evolution is an arbitrary or accidental process, and that we got to the point we are at by amazing luck, or by the organisms with the really cool genetic material "winning the competition."
Natural selection is the most verified scientific theory in the history of mankind.

You are lost.
If you don't buy the "role of competition" it means that you don't understand how a struggle for resources defines the evolution of life. It is, as Vigilant says, not a matter for argument.

I know very little about the Larouche folks -- I always thought it was mostly about politics and hating the UK or summat. I didn't know they have idiosyncratic views of science.

User avatar
iii
Habitué
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:15 am
Wikipedia User: ජපස
Wikipedia Review Member: iii
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by iii » Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:58 am

Hersch wrote:If you fellows want to debate LaRouche's ideas, debate this:
I'm curious, Hersch: is there dissent allowed within LaRouchistas? If you were to take issue with any of this Basement Team blatherskite, would you get kicked out of the organization?

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by DanMurphy » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:01 am

iii wrote:
Hersch wrote:If you fellows want to debate LaRouche's ideas, debate this:
I'm curious, Hersch: is there dissent allowed within LaRouchistas? If you were to take issue with any of this Basement Team blatherskite, would you get kicked out of the organization?
Am I the only one that gets an ad about having my Chakra checked out when I open that video?

User avatar
iii
Habitué
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:15 am
Wikipedia User: ජපස
Wikipedia Review Member: iii
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by iii » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:02 am

DanMurphy wrote:
iii wrote:
Hersch wrote:If you fellows want to debate LaRouche's ideas, debate this:
I'm curious, Hersch: is there dissent allowed within LaRouchistas? If you were to take issue with any of this Basement Team blatherskite, would you get kicked out of the organization?
Am I the only one that gets an ad about having my Chakra checked out when I open that video?
Adblock takes care of youtube ads for me.

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Hersch » Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:13 am

DanMurphy wrote: Am I the only one that gets an ad about having my Chakra checked out when I open that video?
There is no ad on the video. And you may be the only one who tried to open it. Would I be safe in assuming that the others who are making pronouncements here did not watch it? When encountering an unorthodox idea, it's best to avoid contamination by repeating a mantra of ad hominem gossip. It's the Wikipedia way.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:52 am

Hersch wrote:Would I be safe in assuming that the others who are making pronouncements here did not watch it?
You'd be safer in saying that they got to the part about the "biogenic current of atoms" directing evolutionary development and either clicked the Stop button immediately, or else they waited for the definition of "energy flux density" and then clicked the Stop button.

Why doesn't he just stick to economics? He's good with economics. Alarmist to be sure, but alarmism is justifiable these days.

:idea:

User avatar
iii
Habitué
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:15 am
Wikipedia User: ජපස
Wikipedia Review Member: iii
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by iii » Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:19 am

Midsize Jake wrote:You'd be safer in saying that they got to the part about the "biogenic current of atoms" directing evolutionary development and either clicked the Stop button immediately, or else they waited for the definition of "energy flux density" and then clicked the Stop button.
:applause:

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Hersch » Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:37 am

Midsize Jake wrote: Why doesn't he just stick to economics? He's good with economics.
Well, you did ask. :ermm:

The reason he's good with economics is that he treats as it science, not social science. I can sense VM's blood pressure mounting. LaRouche, like the Renaissance dudes that he admires, sees the universe as developing in a purposeful, non-arbitrary way. (As an aside, here's an analogy that I came up with: It's like a maturing organism. As a human makes the transition from an infant to an adult, the proportions change, so that the limbs elongate and become a greater proportion of the body relative to the head. Should we take that to mean that the muscle and bone cells of the limbs are winning the competition for scarce resources, and the head is losing?) LaRouche was attracted to Vernadsky because Vernadsky's theory of evolution operates that way; I suppose it might be fair to call it "teleological." LaRouche rejects the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it applies only to closed, dead systems. The universe itself LaRouche characterizes as "anti-entropic."

This puts LaRouche at odds with the Malthusians, who dominate many fields of intellectual activity in the English-speaking world. LaRouche doesn't believe in "scarce resources"; he believes in a progression of resources, where humans learn to utilize a new resource base before the old one is tapped out. He also believes a progression of types of resources, so that each successive resource base is more highly concentrated and burns at a higher temperature than the previous one (that's one aspect of your dreaded "energy flux density.") For example, from firewood, to coal, to petroleum, and then on to things which don't involve burning per se, such as nuclear. This makes us quite different from animal species who do in fact operate on a fixed resource base.

This kind of "evolution" in economic practice is coherent with the self-developing quality LaRouche sees in the universe generally, and he warns that if man doesn't operate that way, he goes extinct. Contrast this with the Malthusians, who argue that we ought to mimic the animals and treat resources as fixed and finite.

This outlook caused LaRouche to warn, beginning in the 60s, that there was a shift underway not only in economic policy, but in science and culture as well, where the idea of progress was being cast aside. By adopting practices that were at odds with the general tendency of the universe, we were inviting disaster. He also identified that Monetarist notion, that allocating capital to financial speculation is essentially just as good and valid as investing in physical production (if not better), as the immediate threat (along with the environmentalist rejection of technological progress.) Perhaps on that point, financial speculation, you may agree.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun Jun 02, 2013 4:05 am

You are the reason that people like Mathsci and Connelly get so much traction on WP.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Sun Jun 02, 2013 5:49 am

It seems to me that the theory proposed in the video is not actually in conflict with natural selection or "survival of the fittest", but just puts the competitive aspect of evolution in a broader context. Organisms would be competing and being weeded out based on their adaptations, but there is a specific direction to it. Evolution, in that theory, aims to increase the potential for energy use so as to increase the potential for the expansion of the ecosystem. As a result, the ecosystem evolves as well to accommodate the expansion. I would contend that the whole idea of competition and natural selection as the deciding factors in evolution wrongly treats organisms as though their development occurs in a bubble, but for entirely different reasons. It doesn't matter if a given species has developed the most suitable traits for surviving a post-impact climate shift if their entire breeding population resides in the area that gets hit by the asteroid. That doesn't mean disorder is favored, but rather that order does not follow any set guidelines.

Organisms survive by one trick of nature or the other and naturally tend towards the most optimal means of survival under the given circumstances. Even then, this may not be for the better of the ecosystem or the species of the organisms as tricks of nature or maladaptive behaviors may block the path to further evolutionary progress. A breeding population may endure for reasons unconnected to biology or social development, but dependent entirely on a "right place, right time" selection and have traits that are actually less desirable for dealing with existing environmental pressures. This may result in the more desirable traits dying out as a natural consequence of the less desirable traits being the most numerous within the surviving population. Alternatively, the more desirable traits being the "other" might even be seen as undesirable within the majority breeding population and end up getting forced into extinction through social isolation.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


Volunteer Marek
Habitué
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Volunteer Marek » Sun Jun 02, 2013 6:36 am

Hersch wrote:
Midsize Jake wrote: Why doesn't he just stick to economics? He's good with economics.
Well, you did ask. :ermm:

The reason he's good with economics is that he treats as it science, not social science. I can sense VM's blood pressure mounting. LaRouche, like the Renaissance dudes that he admires, sees the universe as developing in a purposeful, non-arbitrary way. (As an aside, here's an analogy that I came up with: It's like a maturing organism. As a human makes the transition from an infant to an adult, the proportions change, so that the limbs elongate and become a greater proportion of the body relative to the head. Should we take that to mean that the muscle and bone cells of the limbs are winning the competition for scarce resources, and the head is losing?) LaRouche was attracted to Vernadsky because Vernadsky's theory of evolution operates that way; I suppose it might be fair to call it "teleological." LaRouche rejects the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it applies only to closed, dead systems. The universe itself LaRouche characterizes as "anti-entropic."

This puts LaRouche at odds with the Malthusians, who dominate many fields of intellectual activity in the English-speaking world. LaRouche doesn't believe in "scarce resources"; he believes in a progression of resources, where humans learn to utilize a new resource base before the old one is tapped out. He also believes a progression of types of resources, so that each successive resource base is more highly concentrated and burns at a higher temperature than the previous one (that's one aspect of your dreaded "energy flux density.") For example, from firewood, to coal, to petroleum, and then on to things which don't involve burning per se, such as nuclear. This makes us quite different from animal species who do in fact operate on a fixed resource base.

This kind of "evolution" in economic practice is coherent with the self-developing quality LaRouche sees in the universe generally, and he warns that if man doesn't operate that way, he goes extinct. Contrast this with the Malthusians, who argue that we ought to mimic the animals and treat resources as fixed and finite.

This outlook caused LaRouche to warn, beginning in the 60s, that there was a shift underway not only in economic policy, but in science and culture as well, where the idea of progress was being cast aside. By adopting practices that were at odds with the general tendency of the universe, we were inviting disaster. He also identified that Monetarist notion, that allocating capital to financial speculation is essentially just as good and valid as investing in physical production (if not better), as the immediate threat (along with the environmentalist rejection of technological progress.) Perhaps on that point, financial speculation, you may agree.
More like eyes rolling. He's not good with economics. He's as crazy with economics as he is with the other stuff. As far as "alarmist" goes - if one's "alarmist" for 40 years, and eventually a major recession happens that doesn't make you any less crazy. Stopped clock and all that stuff.

And just read the rest of Hersch's comment if you need any more proof that it's all just nutzoid gobblydook.

User avatar
TungstenCarbide
Habitué
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by TungstenCarbide » Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:03 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:... And just read the rest of Hersch's comment if you need any more proof that it's all just nutzoid gobblydook.
Couldn't make it though this video, just didn't catch my attention. But some of the other videos Hersh has dropped links for in the past were interesting - large civil engineering projects for economic development; a tunnel across the Bering Strait, an American/Canadian hydro project, projects that don't have a snowballs chance in hell regardless of their economic potential ... gave me the impression that LaRouche is a gallant dreamer.
Last edited by TungstenCarbide on Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gone hiking. also, beware of women with crazy head gear and a dagger.

Volunteer Marek
Habitué
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Volunteer Marek » Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:13 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:... And just read the rest of Hersch's comment if you need any more proof that it's all just nutzoid gobblydook.
couldn't make it though this video, just didn't catch my attention. But some of the other videos Hersh has dropped links for in the past were interesting - large civil engineering projects for economic development; a tunnel across the Bering Strait, an American/Canadian hydro project ... gave me the impression that LaRouche is a gallant dreamer.
"so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics".

Something like that.

User avatar
TungstenCarbide
Habitué
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by TungstenCarbide » Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:16 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:... And just read the rest of Hersch's comment if you need any more proof that it's all just nutzoid gobblydook.
couldn't make it though this video, just didn't catch my attention. But some of the other videos Hersh has dropped links for in the past were interesting - large civil engineering projects for economic development; a tunnel across the Bering Strait, an American/Canadian hydro project ... gave me the impression that LaRouche is a gallant dreamer.
"so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics".

Something like that.
I didn't read all that crap, but it looks like one of those 'heat death of the universe arguments that runs into the philosophical', rather than a thermodynamic availability analysis for a power plant. Also, remember maxwell's little devil? The Second Law of Thermodynamics isn't as sacred as you may think.
Gone hiking. also, beware of women with crazy head gear and a dagger.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:43 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:... And just read the rest of Hersch's comment if you need any more proof that it's all just nutzoid gobblydook.
couldn't make it though this video, just didn't catch my attention. But some of the other videos Hersh has dropped links for in the past were interesting - large civil engineering projects for economic development; a tunnel across the Bering Strait, an American/Canadian hydro project ... gave me the impression that LaRouche is a gallant dreamer.
"so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics".

Something like that.
I didn't read all that crap, but it looks like one of those 'heat death of the universe arguments that runs into the philosophical', rather than a thermodynamic availability analysis for a power plant. Also, remember maxwell's devil? The Second Law of Thermodynamics isn't as sacred as you may think.
FFS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
Real-life versions of Maxwellian demons occur, but all such "real demons" have their entropy-lowering effects duly balanced by increase of entropy elsewhere.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
TungstenCarbide
Habitué
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by TungstenCarbide » Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:58 am

Vigilant wrote:FFS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
Real-life versions of Maxwellian demons occur, but all such "real demons" have their entropy-lowering effects duly balanced by increase of entropy elsewhere.
Does that quote give comfort to your faith, Vigilant?

It wasn't too long ago that materials with a negative refractive index were considered science fiction.
Gone hiking. also, beware of women with crazy head gear and a dagger.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:01 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:I didn't read all that crap, but it looks like one of those 'heat death of the universe arguments that runs into the philosophical', rather than a thermodynamic availability analysis for a power plant. Also, remember maxwell's little devil? The Second Law of Thermodynamics isn't as sacred as you may think.
Yeah, I always thought that whole business of "dynamic" thermoses was a load of crap too, until I actually met one at a wife-swapping party in Bensonhurst one night. I mean, this ordinary-looking thermos just got up and started kicking major ass. I was lucky to get out of there alive, I don't mind saying. I still can't remember if my wife made it out...

Anyway, I would agree that LaRouche's abilities as an economist are compromised by his pessimism and general disdain for any authority figure not named "Lyndon LaRouche," but I don't think he's crazy when it comes to economics. It's an oversimplification to say that he kept predicting a recession would occur until it finally did... Still, I don't want to come off as a supporter or anything, I just think he should stick with what he knows. Besides, he's like 91 years old, so what does he still have time for - two, maybe three more Presidential runs? At some point you've got to stop worrying about obtaining ultimate political power and start thinking about how you're going to get from the bed to the bathroom in time to avoid soiling yourself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:02 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Vigilant wrote:FFS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
Real-life versions of Maxwellian demons occur, but all such "real demons" have their entropy-lowering effects duly balanced by increase of entropy elsewhere.
Does that quote give comfort to your faith, Vigilant?

It wasn't too long ago that materials with a negative refractive index were considered science fiction.
There's nothing about faith in there.
In every experiment, entropy has increased elsewhere to balance things out.

Get right to work on your perpetual motion machine, TC.
Let me know how that works out for you.

I'll be able to say I knew you when.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
TungstenCarbide
Habitué
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by TungstenCarbide » Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:25 am

Vigilant wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
Vigilant wrote:FFS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
Real-life versions of Maxwellian demons occur, but all such "real demons" have their entropy-lowering effects duly balanced by increase of entropy elsewhere.
Does that quote give comfort to your faith, Vigilant?

It wasn't too long ago that materials with a negative refractive index were considered science fiction.
There's nothing about faith in there.
In every experiment, entropy has increased elsewhere to balance things out.

Get right to work on your perpetual motion machine, TC.
Let me know how that works out for you.

I'll be able to say I knew you when.
So anyway, I had this engineering professor once. He was an excitable guy, desiccated, old, full of piss and vinegar. He happened to be a leading expert on antique barbed wire, I think. Anyway, somehow he got into wrestling, as a judge or ref or something. This was way back when AIDS first came out, and the wrestlers were really worried about it. So we'd come to class all excited to learn about austempering and martensite, and instead were treated to an hour long rant about the difference between body fluids and bodily fluids. You see, in the vernacular of the time, body fluids, like sweat, don't transmit the AIDS virus, but bodily fluids, such as semen, vaginal secretions and blood, do. The professor's cohorts in the wrestling world didn't understand the difference between the two, and so as a consequence we were subjected to an hour long rant about the injustice of the universe.

Another favorite topic of this man was the second law of thermodynamics, so you have to understand where I'm coming from here.
Vigilant wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:It wasn't too long ago that materials with a negative refractive index were considered science fiction.
There's nothing about faith in there.
In every experiment, entropy has increased elsewhere to balance things out.
so therefore you have faith that Maxwell's Demon doesn't and can't exist?

I'm listening buddy, go right ahead and prove me a negative.
Gone hiking. also, beware of women with crazy head gear and a dagger.

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by The Joy » Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:32 am

I've tried to parse Cold fusion (T-H-L) and its explanations stretch what I learned in high school chemistry. I know Abd (T-C-L) and JzG (T-C-L) were fighting over it years ago, though it seems stable for now. :slapfight:

The most of I know about nuclear fusion is its prominent in stars and creates immense energy. From the diagram, it looks more like a battery. I don't see how that could create a lot of energy. Then again, I'm not a nuclear physicist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cold_ ... olysis.svg

I would ask for a little physics lesson, but, well...
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
iii
Habitué
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:15 am
Wikipedia User: ජපස
Wikipedia Review Member: iii
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by iii » Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:42 am

TungstenCarbide wrote: so therefore you have faith that Maxwell's Demon doesn't and can't exist?

I'm listening buddy, go right ahead and prove me a negative.
Maxwell's Demon cannot exist without appealing to a machine that follows the second law of thermodynamics. This is a problem often given in introductory statistical mechanics or information theory courses. E.g. this.
Kirk T. McDonald wrote:At some time during his task, the demon must perform a cleanup (erasure) operation equivalent to that of part (a), in which the entropy of the molecules/computer can be unchanged, but with an increase in the entropy of the environment by at least k ln 2 per erased bit.
Last edited by iii on Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by lilburne » Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:43 am

The Joy wrote:I've tried to parse Cold fusion (T-H-L) and its explanations stretch what I learned in high school chemistry. I know Abd (T-C-L) and JzG (T-C-L) were fighting over it years ago, though it seems stable for now. :slapfight:

The current think appears to be to crowd source all the hot air, or something like that.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/30/rossi
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
iii
Habitué
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:15 am
Wikipedia User: ජපස
Wikipedia Review Member: iii
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by iii » Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:47 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:It wasn't too long ago that materials with a negative refractive index were considered science fiction.
In astrophysical contexts, materials with negative and imaginary refractive indices have been known about for the better part of 100 years.

User avatar
iii
Habitué
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:15 am
Wikipedia User: ජපස
Wikipedia Review Member: iii
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by iii » Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:59 am

Hersch wrote:LaRouche was attracted to Vernadsky because Vernadsky's theory of evolution operates that way; I suppose it might be fair to call it "teleological." LaRouche rejects the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it applies only to closed, dead systems. The universe itself LaRouche characterizes as "anti-entropic."
That's utter nonsense. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to all systems, in spite of what certain perpetual motion enthusiasts insist. It's a classic creationist canard that life violates it or that the law only applies to "closed systems". Local violations can occur (as in the case of a refrigerator) only if you ignore parts of the energy input or output of the system. So, for example, if you look at the entropy reduction that happens in biological systems without taking into account the heat produced by such systems you can find a local decrease in entropy. But that's accompanied by an increase in entropy elsewhere in the heat engine.

As a sort of teleology, Vernadsky's proposals are close to something like Teilhard de Chardin's teleology. But this proposal is essentially corrupt as described in this essay.

I'm not sure where that leaves LaRouche. I corresponded with the man once over e-mail and found that even when he was way out of his depth, he took particular solace in appealing to his own philosophical convictions. This is actually a rather common condition of many "anti-scientists". Has LaRouche ever admitted that he was wrong?

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by The Joy » Sun Jun 02, 2013 10:00 am

lilburne wrote:
The Joy wrote:I've tried to parse Cold fusion (T-H-L) and its explanations stretch what I learned in high school chemistry. I know Abd (T-C-L) and JzG (T-C-L) were fighting over it years ago, though it seems stable for now. :slapfight:

The current think appears to be to crowd source all the hot air, or something like that.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/30/rossi
So Jimbo Wales has successfully proved that cold fusion is real!? :o :lol:
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Poetlister » Sun Jun 02, 2013 11:07 am

Aren't we being just a touch hypocritical? We are criticising Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views", while ourselves attacking Hersch.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Zoloft » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:21 pm

I believe we're mostly being fair. Note we haven't blocked him or reduced what he can do here. He's a human being and we treat him as such.

Wikipedia doesn't perform quite so well in that regard.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Hersch » Sun Jun 02, 2013 4:32 pm

Zoloft wrote:I believe we're mostly being fair. Note we haven't blocked him or reduced what he can do here. He's a human being and we treat him as such.
No one has overtly called for burning me at the stake.
iii wrote: As a sort of teleology, Vernadsky's proposals are close to something like Teilhard de Chardin's teleology. But this proposal is essentially corrupt as described in this essay.
A website comprised of USENET posts from talk.origins says that the universe operates according to the principles of Ayn Rand. I feel duly chastened.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
SB_Johnny
Habitué
Posts: 4640
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by SB_Johnny » Sun Jun 02, 2013 5:08 pm

Outsider wrote:Aren't we being just a touch hypocritical? We are criticising Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views", while ourselves attacking Hersch.
Honestly I'm having a hard time deciding whether we're off-topic.

So back to the topic: marginalizing fringe views seems like a pretty good thing for an encyclopedia to do. In fact it's nearly tautological! :boing:
This is not a signature.

Volunteer Marek
Habitué
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Volunteer Marek » Sun Jun 02, 2013 5:21 pm

Outsider wrote:Aren't we being just a touch hypocritical? We are criticising Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views", while ourselves attacking Hersch.
I usually criticize Wikipedia for not being conscientious enough with getting rid of that crap. So no hypocrisy here.

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Hersch » Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:17 pm

SB_Johnny wrote: So back to the topic: marginalizing fringe views seems like a pretty good thing for an encyclopedia to do. In fact it's nearly tautological! :boing:
If by "marginalizing fringe views" you mean dismissing them with a few words, I agree. Unfortunately, I think the problem is much more in the direction to which Devil's Advocate alluded, which is that instead of "marginalizing" the fringe views, WP opts for punishing those who are deemed to be promulgators and popularizers, by devoting mucho bandwidth to demonizing them in a variety of ways, Streisand Effect be damned.

Let's take the case of a recently created article, Frankfurt School conspiracy theory (T-H-L). It was almost entirely authored by someone named Fuzzy mongoose (T-C-L), with a minor supporting role by our new friend Coffeepusher (T-C-L). Instead of simply dismissing the vaguely defined "theory," the article relies upon a number of logical fallacies/propaganda techniques:

* Non-sequitur: some members of the Frankfurt School were Jewish. Therefore, criticism of the Frankfurt School is motivated by antisemitism.
* Fallacy of composition: some versions of the "theory" incorporate antisemitism, therefore all versions of the "theory" are likely motivated by it.
* Guilt by association: a number of extremist groups have circulated versions of the "theory"; therefore, any group which discusses any version of it is suspect.

And so on and so on, with crappy sources, etc. This is unfortunately typical of "marginalization", Wikipedia-style.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:47 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:So back to the topic: marginalizing fringe views seems like a pretty good thing for an encyclopedia to do. In fact it's nearly tautological! :boing:
Marginalizing fringe views isn't really the issue. Debunkers do not merely commit themselves to insuring fringe views are noted as such and only mentioned where they are of clear significance, but try to shoehorn in argumentative material supporting the mainstream view wherever they can manage it and effectively working to censor all coverage of fringe views outside a designated holding area by invoking WP:ONEWAY and other misrepresented bits of the alphabet soup. The tendency to generalize and disparage the views or their adherents is also rather common. Hersch gave an example of one common tactic employed against conspiracy theories all the time: the "antisemitism" card.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Ming » Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:15 pm

This talk of "debunkers" as if they were a class of people is running contrary to the fact that each of the incidents mentioned here appears to involve a different set of people. Ming, having been exposed to a couple of Real Life Marxists, tends to run for cover whenever Gramsci's visage appears, but the whole Frankfort School mess seems to be an external conflict dragged into Wikipedia for all the usual reasons. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the FT/N crowd or the MEDPRS enforcers.

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Hersch » Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:02 pm

Ming wrote:This talk of "debunkers" as if they were a class of people is running contrary to the fact that each of the incidents mentioned here appears to involve a different set of people. Ming, having been exposed to a couple of Real Life Marxists, tends to run for cover whenever Gramsci's visage appears, but the whole Frankfort School mess seems to be an external conflict dragged into Wikipedia for all the usual reasons. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the FT/N crowd or the MEDPRS enforcers.
I don't think there is anything like a "debunkers' cabal." It is simply that in the Web 2.0 universe, WP offers armchair propagandists, along with "revenge editors", an irresistible platform from which to hold forth. In the case of "debunking", WP policy encourages this sort of activity by setting a very low sourcing threshold for notability (one hostile secondary source) and a culture where debunkers are more or less egged on to seek and destroy the evil fringe view-holders.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Ming » Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:21 pm

Fringe apologists are generally either evil or the agents of evil, if one understands the spreading of misinformation as evil. People who use Wikipedia as a platform for pushing medical quackery are hurting those who believe them. People who push pseudoscience are harming public discourse, when they aren't aiding scammers who are trying to get people to put money into their schemes. People who push pseudohistorical rot and paranoid conspiracy theories are interfering with political judgement. Ming feels that it is an act of virtue to refute these untruths, if they must see the light of day at all.

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Hersch » Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:35 pm

The appropriate way to combat misinformation is with correct information. Regarding what goes on at Wikipedia, however, see my earlier post.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


Volunteer Marek
Habitué
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Volunteer Marek » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:04 pm

Hersch wrote:The appropriate way to combat misinformation is with correct information. Regarding what goes on at Wikipedia, however, see my earlier post.
But this directly contradicts what you advocate above - the problem you have with the Frankfurt School Conspiracy article is that it exists at all (and I agree that there's some synthesis and throwing in of "legitimate" (after all they were Marxists and all that) criticisms of the Frankfurt School with conspiracy stuff into the same bag). Your earlier comment more or less says that "you combat misinformation (crazy FSC stuff) by ignoring it and not over playing your hand". Unless you think that the "misinformation" here is not the crazy FS-Conspiracy people but the folks like Martin Jay who write about them.

If the argument is that "there's some crazy people out there who make crazy accusations about the FS but they're not notable or that important and the existence of these crackpots should not be given prominence (in the sense of having a Wikipedia article) nor should it be used as an excuse to deprecate ALL criticisms of the FS" then, yeah that's fine.

But this seems to be more of a "they're tarring a conspiracy theory I happen to like with the conspiracy brush! How dare they!". You want the Schiller Institute essay taken at face value?

Writing up about the wacky nature of these conspiracies (whether they're notable or not) IS "providing correct information". You think that article should be deleted/not written at all, ok. You think it should give treat their arguments seriously... no.

And honestly, just from a purely pragmatic, propagandist, and Machavallian perspective you really should probably refrain from bringing up these cases here - because then people will actually look at the relevant articles and realize there's a whole bunch of nutty bullshit in them. I don't know much about LaRouche and the only time I've looked at the Wikipedia articles on him (and related) was when you brought him up. But every time I did so I came away with a sense that "yup, lots of chicanery, white washing and bullshiting going on in them". You want scrutiny and attention paid to them? You're not gonna get what you like.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:06 pm

Ming wrote:This talk of "debunkers" as if they were a class of people is running contrary to the fact that each of the incidents mentioned here appears to involve a different set of people. Ming, having been exposed to a couple of Real Life Marxists, tends to run for cover whenever Gramsci's visage appears, but the whole Frankfort School mess seems to be an external conflict dragged into Wikipedia for all the usual reasons. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the FT/N crowd or the MEDPRS enforcers.
It is true the certain political conflicts are turned into fringer-debunker battles. The "politicization of science" article I linked to previously is an example of that intersection between debunkers and partisans, though it oddly was framed from the opposing view in the climate change battle and was simply co-opted by debunkers and partisans. Many debunkers are actually also partisans if you check their activity on mainstream issues. MastCell, for instance, has a blatant American liberal POV-pushing streak and camps out at the WikiProject Conservatism page to feud with anyone who comments on that group's talk page.

Describing it as a class of people would not be inaccurate as a "class" would be any group of individuals with shared characteristics. Here the shared characteristic would be a desire to use Wikipedia as a venue for disproving and disparaging views that are outside the mainstream. Obviously, not all debunkers share the same mainstream views and some may even by sympathetic to certain fringe views more in tune with their political affiliation. What connects them is that a large part of their purpose on Wikipedia is to fight against certain fringe views by throwing out the alphabet soup.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Hersch » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:50 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:Obviously, not all debunkers share the same mainstream views and some may even by sympathetic to certain fringe views more in tune with their political affiliation.
Bingo. The problem is that once a target group or viewpoint has been designated as "fringe," Wikipediots relax the rules and it becomes permissible to use all sorts of fallacious argument, lousy sources, and innuendo on the alleged "promulgators," which is a problem entirely separate from the fringiness of the view.
Volunteer Marek wrote: I don't know much about LaRouche and the only time I've looked at the Wikipedia articles on him (and related) was when you brought him up. But every time I did so I came away with a sense that "yup, lots of chicanery, white washing and bullshiting going on in them".
That's a reflection on Wikipedia, not on LaRouche.

My dear Marek, I've grown accustomed to your rants, and my heart goes out to you, because you have staked your reputation on the claim that the economic policies of the past half-century are essentially competent, that everything is really under control, and if we just give them time, the policies of Greenspan, Bernanke et al. will work out just fine. This will not end well for you.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:52 pm

Hersch wrote:
The Devil's Advocate wrote:Obviously, not all debunkers share the same mainstream views and some may even by sympathetic to certain fringe views more in tune with their political affiliation.
Bingo. The problem is that once a target group or viewpoint has been designated as "fringe," Wikipediots relax the rules and it becomes permissible to use all sorts of fallacious argument, lousy sources, and innuendo on the alleged "promulgators," which is a problem entirely separate from the fringiness of the view.
Volunteer Marek wrote: I don't know much about LaRouche and the only time I've looked at the Wikipedia articles on him (and related) was when you brought him up. But every time I did so I came away with a sense that "yup, lots of chicanery, white washing and bullshiting going on in them".
That's a reflection on Wikipedia, not on LaRouche.

My dear Marek, I've grown accustomed to your rants, and my heart goes out to you, because you have staked your reputation on the claim that the economic policies of the past half-century are essentially competent, that everything is really under control, and if we just give them time, the policies of Greenspan, Bernanke et al. will work out just fine. This will not end well for you.
Coming from someone who "doesn't believe" in natural selection.
I think I'll take my chances.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:37 am

Vigilant wrote:Coming from someone who "doesn't believe" in natural selection.
I think I'll take my chances.
Well, I believe in natural selection. Despite the lofty ideals Ming espouses, most debunkers are not so concerned about accuracy as it concerns fringe views. Their desire is to go after the "other" and the truth has very little to do with that in the grand scheme of things. In particular, there are few scruples about outright lying and fudging of the facts about what their opponents are doing in order to get them dinged. Said opponents need not be advocates of a fringe theory as anyone who gets in the way of their sacred mission is a target.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Hersch » Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:55 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Coming from someone who "doesn't believe" in natural selection.
I think I'll take my chances.
Well, I believe in natural selection. Despite the lofty ideals Ming espouses, most debunkers are not so concerned about accuracy as it concerns fringe views. Their desire is to go after the "other" and the truth has very little to do with that in the grand scheme of things. In particular, there are few scruples about outright lying and fudging of the facts about what their opponents are doing in order to get them dinged. Said opponents need not be advocates of a fringe theory as anyone who gets in the way of their sacred mission is a target.
I too believe in natural selection, just not the existentialist version. As far as the "fringe views" controversy is concerned, I think that Devil's Advocate has pretty much nailed it.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:42 am

Hersch wrote:
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Coming from someone who "doesn't believe" in natural selection.
I think I'll take my chances.
Well, I believe in natural selection. Despite the lofty ideals Ming espouses, most debunkers are not so concerned about accuracy as it concerns fringe views. Their desire is to go after the "other" and the truth has very little to do with that in the grand scheme of things. In particular, there are few scruples about outright lying and fudging of the facts about what their opponents are doing in order to get them dinged. Said opponents need not be advocates of a fringe theory as anyone who gets in the way of their sacred mission is a target.
I too believe in natural selection, just not the existentialist version. As far as the "fringe views" controversy is concerned, I think that Devil's Advocate has pretty much nailed it.
There aren't convenient versions of science wherein you take something from column A, something from column B and an extra order of kook salad.

Write a paper with your thoughts.
Get it peer reviewed.
If you're right, you'll get a Nobel.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
iii
Habitué
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:15 am
Wikipedia User: ජපස
Wikipedia Review Member: iii
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by iii » Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:51 am

Hersch wrote:A website comprised of USENET posts from talk.origins says that the universe operates according to the principles of Ayn Rand. I feel duly chastened.
Hmm, after lamenting that no one watched your Basement Team video (which I actually watched in full), now you're dismissing an essay simply because it was posted on USENET? And apparently there is some conspiracy that Ayn Rand is somehow involved. Other than your own imagination, where's your evidence of that? Perhaps you could deal with the actual content of the essay? No?

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s crusade against "fringe views" generally

Unread post by Ming » Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:48 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Coming from someone who "doesn't believe" in natural selection.
I think I'll take my chances.
Well, I believe in natural selection. Despite the lofty ideals Ming espouses, most debunkers are not so concerned about accuracy as it concerns fringe views. Their desire is to go after the "other" and the truth has very little to do with that in the grand scheme of things. In particular, there are few scruples about outright lying and fudging of the facts about what their opponents are doing in order to get them dinged. Said opponents need not be advocates of a fringe theory as anyone who gets in the way of their sacred mission is a target.
The "sacred mission" of the FT/N crowd is to keep all the various cranks and the credulous from using Wikipedia as an advertizing vehicle for their garbage ideas. The "cranks" really only have a case here if there is something to their worldview, but sort of thing that typically shows up on FT/N is almost always indefensible. People lose patience there because "against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." Ming has on two occasions done an extensive debunk of 9/11 conspiracy theory "evidence", not because there is ever any hope of the people who push these theories recanting from their manifest errors, but because it's one more place for onlookers to see the truth of the matter rather than the lies and misinformation spread by the conspiracy mavens.

The political conspiracy theories are a whole 'nother matter and the pseudoscience debunkers, as far as I can see, don't tend to show up there. Personally Ming doesn't want to get involved in the Larouche toxicity, but looking at the Frankfort School sources, obviously there are people out there who think there is a crankish theory and who think that this theory is bunk. So, how does anyone write an article on this? Larouche supporters and "fellow travellers" obviously have an interest in denying that any such thing exists as its debunkers describe it. Politicization of science is something of a crossroads, and people from many sides show up, along with the various political factions who are determined to make the other side look bad and minimize negative coverage of their own people. Ming as been around long enough to have some sense of what to take at face value and when to be skeptical of the mainstream position. The problem is, the average reader is ill-equipped to do the same; they need to be presented with some evaluation of which positions are reasonable and which are not. That's why, on one level, the EB article on Shakespearean authorship is a better article: it may not lay out the evidence at length, but the naive reader will come away from it with the point that most people in the field (as opposed to controversialist amateurs) are convinced that he really did write the stuff.

Post Reply