| Revision as of 22:36, 17 October 2019 editGuy Macon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,291 editsm Setting up archive bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:59, 4 December 2024 edit undoGuy Macon Alternate Account (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users735 editsm Spelling | ||
| (263 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{User page|border-c=blue|background=transparent|logo=yes|noindex=yes}} | ||
| {{Nutshell|Saying that "Misplaced Pages is biased" or that "Misplaced Pages fails to follow its own ] rules" is not a set of ] that will cause Misplaced Pages to accept your favorite ], ], ], ] or ].}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| ⚫ | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| ⚫ | | |
||
| ⚫ | |maxarchivesize = 256K | ||
| ⚫ | | |
||
| | |
|counter = 2 | ||
| ⚫ | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| ⚫ | | |
||
| ⚫ | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| ⚫ | | |
||
| ⚫ | |algo = old(64d) | ||
| ⚫ | | |
||
| ⚫ | |archive = User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased./Archive %(counter)d | ||
| ⚫ | | |
||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archivebox}} | |||
| == The purpose of this essay == | == The purpose of this essay == | ||
| <!-- ] 03:14, 19 January 2038 (UTC) --> | <!-- ] 03:14, 19 January 2038 (UTC) --> | ||
| I wrote this essay to be a teaching tool for those who believe pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, urban myths, and other things which are not supported by any actual evidence. | I wrote this essay to be a teaching tool for those who believe pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, urban myths, and other things which are not supported by any actual evidence. | ||
| For example, the reader may be someone who is a True Believer in ] and who strongly objects to the "bias" in our article on that topic. The same reader is likely to ''not'' be a True Believer in ] or ]. My hope is that the reader, by seeing all these other pseudoscientific areas where Misplaced Pages is "biased" right next to his pet fringe theory, will come to an understanding of why it is that Misplaced Pages is "biased" against fringe theories in general. | For example, the reader may be someone who is a True Believer in ] and who strongly objects to the "bias" in our article on that topic. The same reader is likely to ''not'' be a True Believer in ] or ]. My hope is that the reader, by seeing all these other pseudoscientific areas where Misplaced Pages is "biased" right next to his pet fringe theory, will come to an understanding of why it is that Misplaced Pages is "biased" against fringe theories in general. | ||
| ⚫ | Of course we know that in many cases this list will fail in that goal, because ''no'' argument will convince the fringe theorist. In such cases the secondary goal kicks in. This list also helps those who are responding to accusations of bias. All you have to do is to simply cut and paste the list into a talk page discussion with an edit summary of "Yes. We ARE biased." No need for attribution -- I released it under CC0 specifically so that you can use it as if it was your own. This cutting and pasting has been shown to take the wind out of the sails of many fringe theorists who think that they have found the magic words ("Bias!") that will magically cause Misplaced Pages to start promoting things that are not true. In general, cutting and pasting the list is more effective than linking to it, because promoters of pseudoscience have trained themselves to ignore the usual links to ], ], ], etc. --] |
||
| ⚫ | Of course we know that in many cases this list will fail in that goal, because ''no'' argument will convince the fringe theorist. In such cases the secondary goal kicks in. This list also helps those who are responding to accusations of bias. All you have to do is to simply cut and paste the list into a talk page discussion with an edit summary of "Yes. We ARE biased." No need for attribution -- I released it under CC0 specifically so that you can use it as if it was your own. This cutting and pasting has been shown to take the wind out of the sails of many fringe theorists who think that they have found the magic words ("Bias!") that will magically cause Misplaced Pages to start promoting things that are not true. In general, cutting and pasting the list is more effective than linking to it, because promoters of pseudoscience have trained themselves to ignore the usual links to ], ], ], etc. <small>--] 19:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)</small> | ||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | :"Have been thinking good and long about this essay and ], and I'm coming around more to the POV expressed in them... I am a little bit of a bleeding heart for the True Believers™ but in the balance between skepticism and wonder, it does make sense for Misplaced Pages to be biased towards skepticism. That's how it's always been most useful to me. <small>--] 18:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)</small> | ||
| I would like to discuss this recent good-faith addition. | |||
| :" makes clear to everyone what editing Misplaced Pages is about. So, pseudoscience POV-pushers will be blocked or they will avoid pushing POVs, that choice is entirely theirs. But it makes crystal-clear that they will never prevail here. So, this is about establishing boundaries. Some people are honestly not aware that Misplaced Pages is ]." <small>--] 15:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| '''Argument for removal:''' | |||
| :" then let's have a competition: You try to keep more pseudoscience out of articles with your own method, whatever it is." <small>--] 19:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :I believe that this entire essay is a conspiracy to keep me chain-reading article after article about interesting malarkey and its empirical refutations. Thanks a lot, Guy. I'll just clear my calendar. Yours from the rabbit hole, ] 18:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Curses! You have uncovered my Evil Plot! The only thing I can do now is to send you down a deeper rabbit hole. '''''' BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! ] (]) 00:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the correct mad-scientist laugh goes more like "MUHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!" --] (]) 13:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Help needed == | |||
| I want to avoid this essay claiming that we are biased against religious beliefs. We are not; we describe them but do not comment on whether they are true or false. We say that the scientific theories behind laundry balls and homeopathic medicines are bullshit, but we do not say that Mohamed or Joseph Smith are or are not prophets, nor do we say that Krishna or Jehovah do or do not exist. It seems to me that biblical inerrancy is a purely religious belief. | |||
| <!-- Remove this line when the discussion is complete --><!-- ] 17:56, 21 January 2051 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2557936602}} | |||
| '''Argument for retention:''' | |||
| I would like to ask my loyal <s>minions</s> <s>sycophants</s> <s>fanbois</s> <s>henchmen</s> <s>talk page stalkers</s> talk page watchers for assistance. | |||
| Even if biblical inerrancy is a purely religious belief, there are a bunch of psuedoscientific beliefs that are based upon some persons's interpretation of the Bible combined with a strong belief in biblical inerrancy. Young-earth creationism for example. On the other hand, there are plenty of Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy without believing in any pseudoscientific or fringe theories. Theistic evolutionists for example. | |||
| Through the invaluable assistance of others, most of the entries on this list have links to places where someone claimed we are biased against, say, laundry balls. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| :Remove. This crosses the line from science into religion, which is not the intent of this essay. It's also not technically accurate, as biblical inerrancists still believe that the Bible contains allegories and metaphors, so it doesn't necessarily follow that they are all creationists or pseudoscientists. – <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>] 13:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Three items are missing such discussions: | |||
| <blockquote>Thank you for your views. Misplaced Pages has a strong bias in favor of academic sources for history. That is how it should be. If archaeology says Beersheba was founded 6000 years ago and the bible says it was founded 4000 years ago, archaeology wins. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| ⚫ | * We are biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience. | ||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | * We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology. | ||
| :::{{u|Tgeorgescu}}, that's a nice quote, but I don't understand what it has to do with my comment. – <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>] 15:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism. | |||
| ::::{{ping|Bradv}} From a ] perspective biblical inerrantist works are ]. This is practiced all over the place inside Misplaced Pages. Some consider history to be a science, i.e. it includes the history of Christianity and Bible scholarship. ] (]) 15:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Tgeorgescu}}, using the Bible as a source for scientific or academic viewpoints is the problem though, not just the view that the Bible is without error. For example, the Catholic church claims that the Bible is without error, yet views the creation story as allegorical. – <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>] 15:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{ping|Bradv}} How about We are biased towards ], and biased against ].? ] (]) 15:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Or We are biased towards ], and biased against ]. ] (]) 15:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Are these not both covered under the evolution / creation comparison? We could easily include all kinds of anti-religious examples, but I'm not sure that's wise. – <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>] 15:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::My take is that people (mostly vandals or true believers) write religious rubbish inside Misplaced Pages because it is not clear to them what Misplaced Pages is about. Making clear what we stand for would reduce unwanted edits. ] (]) 15:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Agree 100%, but I have serious doubts that this addition will accomplish this in a way that the creationism entry did not. Would any sane person reach the bottom of this list and still doubt that when science and theology disagree Misplaced Pages chooses science every time? What bothers me is the possibility of offending the large number of people who accept science and also believe that the Bible is without error. We might as well add an entry saying that Misplaced Pages is biased against a belief in God. | |||
| ::::::::::Billy Graham was one of those people who accepted science while believing that the Bible is without error: | |||
| :::::::::::"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God." Source: ''Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man'' (1997) p. 72-74 | |||
| ::::::::::--] (]) 06:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Yup, Misplaced Pages isn't against religion, it is against playing fast and loose with the facts. ] (]) 07:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Can anyone find discussions claiming we are biased against phrenology, Lysenkoism, or pseudoscience? | |||
| == Comments on tone, content and purpose here == | |||
| Discussions on Misplaced Pages would be ideal, but even an obscure blog or twitter discussion about how Misplaced Pages is biased against phrenology would be sufficient to establishe that someone claimed we are biased on that topic. | |||
| ] linked to this essay from a discussion on ]. I want to say. while I have been involved in Misplaced Pages for over a decade, I haven't been part of the ] vanguard, and I'd imagine if I was I would be very frustrated with the attempts of people with CoIs to push their point of view in articles. I understand the purpose of having high standards here and I wouldn't suggest changing any of that. I would like to point out some wisdom from ] in '']''. | |||
| * "In the way that skepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the sceptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped." (page 298) | |||
| * "The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them — the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status." (page 300) | |||
| I worry that this essay and ]'s ad hominem "lunatic charlatans" has made it a bit too open season on anyone painted as ]. Like a correction was needed, but perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. An approach that specifically focuses on attacking ideas lacking evidence, rather than people with fringe beliefs seems more appropriate to me. You can see a little of this in the current list, for example: | |||
| ⚫ | * |
||
| I'm not even sure how to interpret that. Is it trying to say Misplaced Pages is biased against isolated groups of people who developed rituals based on their brief experiences with cultures that had more advanced technology? People practicing in cargo cults aren't doing anything wrong, they're just very sadly--but also very understandably--mistaken. Are we ''against'' those people? Against their beliefs? Against the conditions that created their mistaken beliefs? It's also somewhat self-contradictory. If it wasn't for cargo planes, it's likely they there would be fewer cargo cults. | |||
| If you can fix this, you can expect a little something extra in the paychecks we all get for suppressing the ''''''... --] (]) 04:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I think whoever wrote that meant to say something more like ''We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against ].'' At least I would hope so. But even taken in that charitable way, this does seem to fit a pattern I see of anti-fringe criticism is becoming so strident that it's getting sloppy, causing a degree of collateral damage, and discouraging good faith editors. - ] (]) 23:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :For pseudoscience there's , although it mainly claims that we may wrongly classify certain topics as pseudoscience. | |||
| :Re: cargo cults, you make a good point. I have changed the place that link points to. I do want to keep the ] whenever possible, but I ''also'' really want to avoid any hint that we are biased against unpopular religions. That's why you will never see "we are biased against Scientology" on the list. | |||
| :I couldn't find any claim that we were biased against Lysenkoism (maybe it doesn't have many adherents today?) but I did find . (] · ]) ''']''' 02:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fascinating article on "Misplaced Pages’s Lysenkoism", but in my opinion completely wrong. The author, while fighting for their preferred definition of such terms as "sex" "gender" and "female" (ignoring the easily observed fact that word definitions and usage change over time) completely mangles the meaning of "Lysenkoism", redefining it as "any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable" (it actually refers to one specific set of wrong opinions by Trofim Lysenko and to Joseph Stalin making those wrong opinions the only acceptable biological science in the USSR). Interesting, but not much use in this essay. | |||
| ::On the other hand, the jcom.sissa.it paper is just what I was looking for. In seems to be quite clearly claiming that Misplaced Pages is biased against pseudoscience. Example: "their scepticism is applied asymmetrically, always against beliefs contrary to scientific and medical orthodoxy and, and their efforts are invariably against groups espousing those beliefs". The paper even lists Breibart.com as the first citation! Good find. --] (]) 16:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::When they gave that definition of Lysenkoism, they were quoting straight from I don't believe the medium.com article was saying that Lysenkoism includes all forms of pseudoscience, but rather making an analogy between Lysenkoism (which suggests that evolution occurs within a single organism and they aren't bound by genetics) and people being transgender. Regardless, it's a biased article that doesn't work here. An alternative could be a discussion in Misplaced Pages that affirms that we ''do'' believe in Mendelism, such as ] or ]. ]]] 19:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] could be an option for Misplaced Pages being biased against phrenology. It's not a topic discussed much for obvious reasons, but the fact that "it's phrenology" is enough of a reason to delete an article shows that we consider it to be sure pseudoscience. ]]] 17:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| :Re: Sagan, I agree with his take, but this page is not designed to convince anyone to have a skeptical viewpoint or to convince anyone to abandon any of the beliefs that I say we are biased against. This essay doesn't contain any arguments and it does not say ''why'' we are biased against X and biased toward Y. There are plenty of words that have been written in various places that try to do that but this is not one of them. | |||
| Related: I rather like the recent addition of "We are biased towards ], and biased against ]". Does anyone have a "Misplaced Pages is biased" thread we can include? | |||
| :The purpose of this essay is to speak to the heart of someone who, say, really believes that the proponents of antivax are right, that Misplaced Pages is wrong, and that what Misplaced Pages says about vaccines shows a bias. | |||
| Also see: | |||
| :I am not trying to convince them that vaccines don't cause autism. The article does that and has failed to persuade them. What I am doing is taking advantage of the fact that the antivax proponent is very unlikely to also believe in flood geology, laundry balls, or phrenology. By seeing how we are "biased against" those topics, my hope is that the antivax proponent will understand why we are "biased against" antivax. | |||
| * ]. | |||
| :And even if I cannot convince them if that, at the very least I will have answered the accusation of bias by clearly stating "Yes. We are biased. And we are not going to change." --] (]) 00:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| ⚫ | --] (]) 03:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC) | ||
| ::I don't see any good faith editors being discouraged in a way which damages the project - if indeed that is an issue. True Believers™ can edit "in good faith" and still create havoc. Then they need to be discouraged. ] (]) 06:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::I already checked and did not find anything. Maybe someone else will. --] (]) 05:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| :::Where are the Wikitrolls and POV pushers when you need them? (smile) --] (]) 17:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::are we biased in favor of logic and against magic? or is logic a type of magic? or is it we're biased against ]. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 17:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == The following editors endorse the contents of this essay: == | |||
| == Science is not a belief, it's a method based on facts, there's no bias == | |||
| <!-- ] 03:14, 19 January 2038 (UTC) --> | |||
| # ] (]) 01:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Although I personally appreciate this entry (and did not know it was recent, nice effort!), I think it in fact misrepresents and diminishes the very point it's trying to make: that science and verifiability are not based on opinion but on a method relying on facts. Thus, writing that WP's community is biased (towards scientific evidence) is I think a misrepresentation, as the point is to reduce bias. Reducing bias might look like a bias when you come from a biased standpoint, but it's not because it ''looks'' like a bias that it is an objective bias. Just my 2 cents, and I'm not meaning that this essay should be cancelled ;-) <small>Also I'm not touching on the issues of biases in science, it's a whole other ''methodological'' problem that has a different meaning and cause than opinion biases as is the intended (counter-)meaning in "We are biased".</small> --] (]) 21:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | # ] (]) 08:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:59, 4 December 2024
 | This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guy_Macon/Yes._We_are_biased.. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Saying that "Misplaced Pages is biased" or that "Misplaced Pages fails to follow its own neutral point of view rules" is not a set of magic words that will cause Misplaced Pages to accept your favorite conspiracy theory, urban myth, pseudoscience, alternative medicine or fringe theory. |
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 64 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The purpose of this essay
I wrote this essay to be a teaching tool for those who believe pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, urban myths, and other things which are not supported by any actual evidence.
For example, the reader may be someone who is a True Believer in magnetic water treatment and who strongly objects to the "bias" in our article on that topic. The same reader is likely to not be a True Believer in laundry balls or phrenology. My hope is that the reader, by seeing all these other pseudoscientific areas where Misplaced Pages is "biased" right next to his pet fringe theory, will come to an understanding of why it is that Misplaced Pages is "biased" against fringe theories in general.
Of course we know that in many cases this list will fail in that goal, because no argument will convince the fringe theorist. In such cases the secondary goal kicks in. This list also helps those who are responding to accusations of bias. All you have to do is to simply cut and paste the list into a talk page discussion with an edit summary of "Yes. We ARE biased." No need for attribution -- I released it under CC0 specifically so that you can use it as if it was your own. This cutting and pasting has been shown to take the wind out of the sails of many fringe theorists who think that they have found the magic words ("Bias!") that will magically cause Misplaced Pages to start promoting things that are not true. In general, cutting and pasting the list is more effective than linking to it, because promoters of pseudoscience have trained themselves to ignore the usual links to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. --Guy Macon 19:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Have been thinking good and long about this essay and Misplaced Pages:Lunatic charlatans, and I'm coming around more to the POV expressed in them... I am a little bit of a bleeding heart for the True Believers™ but in the balance between skepticism and wonder, it does make sense for Misplaced Pages to be biased towards skepticism. That's how it's always been most useful to me. --User:Scarpy 18:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- " makes clear to everyone what editing Misplaced Pages is about. So, pseudoscience POV-pushers will be blocked or they will avoid pushing POVs, that choice is entirely theirs. But it makes crystal-clear that they will never prevail here. So, this is about establishing boundaries. Some people are honestly not aware that Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTFREESPEECH." --tgeorgescu 15:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- " then let's have a competition: You try to keep more pseudoscience out of articles with your own method, whatever it is." --Hob Gadling 19:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that this entire essay is a conspiracy to keep me chain-reading article after article about interesting malarkey and its empirical refutations. Thanks a lot, Guy. I'll just clear my calendar. Yours from the rabbit hole, Laodah 18:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Curses! You have uncovered my Evil Plot! The only thing I can do now is to send you down a deeper rabbit hole. BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think the correct mad-scientist laugh goes more like "MUHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Curses! You have uncovered my Evil Plot! The only thing I can do now is to send you down a deeper rabbit hole. BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Help needed
I would like to ask my loyal minions sycophants fanbois henchmen talk page stalkers talk page watchers for assistance.
Through the invaluable assistance of others, most of the entries on this list have links to places where someone claimed we are biased against, say, laundry balls.
Three items are missing such discussions:
- We are biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience.
- We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
- We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.
Can anyone find discussions claiming we are biased against phrenology, Lysenkoism, or pseudoscience?
Discussions on Misplaced Pages would be ideal, but even an obscure blog or twitter discussion about how Misplaced Pages is biased against phrenology would be sufficient to establishe that someone claimed we are biased on that topic.
If you can fix this, you can expect a little something extra in the paychecks we all get for suppressing the TRUTH... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- For pseudoscience there's this, although it mainly claims that we may wrongly classify certain topics as pseudoscience.
- I couldn't find any claim that we were biased against Lysenkoism (maybe it doesn't have many adherents today?) but I did find the opposite claim. (t · c) buidhe 02:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Fascinating article on "Misplaced Pages’s Lysenkoism", but in my opinion completely wrong. The author, while fighting for their preferred definition of such terms as "sex" "gender" and "female" (ignoring the easily observed fact that word definitions and usage change over time) completely mangles the meaning of "Lysenkoism", redefining it as "any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable" (it actually refers to one specific set of wrong opinions by Trofim Lysenko and to Joseph Stalin making those wrong opinions the only acceptable biological science in the USSR). Interesting, but not much use in this essay.
- On the other hand, the jcom.sissa.it paper is just what I was looking for. In seems to be quite clearly claiming that Misplaced Pages is biased against pseudoscience. Example: "their scepticism is applied asymmetrically, always against beliefs contrary to scientific and medical orthodoxy and, and their efforts are invariably against groups espousing those beliefs". The paper even lists Breibart.com as the first citation! Good find. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- When they gave that definition of Lysenkoism, they were quoting straight from our article on the term I don't believe the medium.com article was saying that Lysenkoism includes all forms of pseudoscience, but rather making an analogy between Lysenkoism (which suggests that evolution occurs within a single organism and they aren't bound by genetics) and people being transgender. Regardless, it's a biased article that doesn't work here. An alternative could be a discussion in Misplaced Pages that affirms that we do believe in Mendelism, such as this extensive discussion from Talk:Evolution or this one. RedPanda25 19:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence_(Comparison_of_explanations) could be an option for Misplaced Pages being biased against phrenology. It's not a topic discussed much for obvious reasons, but the fact that "it's phrenology" is enough of a reason to delete an article shows that we consider it to be sure pseudoscience. RedPanda25 17:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- When they gave that definition of Lysenkoism, they were quoting straight from our article on the term I don't believe the medium.com article was saying that Lysenkoism includes all forms of pseudoscience, but rather making an analogy between Lysenkoism (which suggests that evolution occurs within a single organism and they aren't bound by genetics) and people being transgender. Regardless, it's a biased article that doesn't work here. An alternative could be a discussion in Misplaced Pages that affirms that we do believe in Mendelism, such as this extensive discussion from Talk:Evolution or this one. RedPanda25 19:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Related: I rather like the recent addition of "We are biased towards Oneirology, and biased against Oneiromancy". Does anyone have a "Misplaced Pages is biased" thread we can include?
Also see:
- Talk:Divination#First paragraph is uncited and most likely incorrect.
- Talk:Dream_interpretation#Proposed merge of Oneiromancy into Dream interpretation
--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I already checked and did not find anything. Maybe someone else will. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Where are the Wikitrolls and POV pushers when you need them? (smile) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- are we biased in favor of logic and against magic? or is logic a type of magic? or is it we're biased against magical thinking. Andre🚐 17:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Where are the Wikitrolls and POV pushers when you need them? (smile) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I already checked and did not find anything. Maybe someone else will. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)