Talk:Inverse stopped clock
[edit] Why is Karl Marx on this list?
Is he seriously considered to be one of those people who are generally reputable? 75.82.181.255 (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- He's still highly influential in academia in general, particularly in the social sciences and literary theory. Not to mention his influence on "softer" socialist movements, i.e., social democracy. 129.100.198.196 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is he's as much an "academic" source on economics the way a physicist is an "academic" source on biology. He is one of many many MANY people of the 19th century with a crackpot idea about how the world would/should/shall work. Much in the same way we have all the crackpots and cranks today; society changes, people don't. The underlying problems of the 19th century were very much real, where many workers would envy much of the third world today, and economics was still in its infancy, so you can't really blame him for what is obviously wrong now (e.g., the "labor value theory" comes to mind). But you can blame his followers who DO have access to things like post-Keynesian economic theories yet still insist that Marx is infallible in spite of every single flavor of communism leaving a foul taste in everyone's mouth. At this point, Communism is a(n atheistic) religion. CorruptUser (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Another embarrassing list encouraging editors to add their pet peeves
Am I the only one who thinks that lists of examples, with no clear criterion for inclusion, are an embarrassment to RationalWiki? People add whatever examples are their favorites, without end, so that the examples are triple the size of the actual text. Female celebrities endorse PETA? Who the fuck cares? Who considers garden variety celebrities experts in anything other than their own entertainment specialties? Charlie Hebdo endorsing psychoanalysis?
Bah. Can we cut this shit out? Come up with, say, a dozen of the most compelling or surprising examples, examples in which the person is widely acknowledged for his wisdom or expertise and in which his opinion is uncontroversially wrong and he should have known better (Newton's alchemy doesn't count in my book), and stop viewing this list as an excuse to give our own opinions about the merits of PETA or psychoanalysis.
Much thanks. Phiwum (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Here are the ones I think are actually reasonable. Every entry should be cited.
- John Quincy Adams (the Hollow Earth thing is surprising)
- Maybe one or two global warming deniers, but not a dozen. Aldrin is fine, others would work.
- Attenborough
- Barnard
- One or two holocaust deniers. Barnes, as a historian, seems like a reasonable choice.
- Maybe Chomsky, but honestly he says so many nutty things in the realm of politics that I'm not sure he counts.
- Dawkins perhaps, but we'd better have clear citations of his "outlandish statements"
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, definitely
- Maybe Heidegger
- Nast seems to have an interesting irony
- Paine?
- Rousseau
- Gore Vidal
- Alfred Russell Wallace
- That's a starting point for discussion. Phiwum (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Chomsky is a big lightning rod -- some of our folks think he's pretty much on point, others think he's pretty much full of shit all the time. I would leave him off, especially because his political activism has little to do with his actual area of expertise and authority. If he said something crazy about linguistics/the mind, that would be notable in this context. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Too much fanboys of him here. --Arisboch (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Fine by me. Let's strike Chomsky from the list. Other comments? Phiwum (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- QED.--Arisboch (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what you think was just demonstrated. I'd just like a simple, uncontroversial list of examples. Phiwum (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd just delete the whole thing - it is stupid and embarrassing. Or, maybe, replace it with a simple statement "Nobody's perfect." Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- And now I notice that it's already been through the Afd process where it was kept after an overwhelming 3-all draw. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I just wish that he wasn't worshipped/quoted by people who can't even pronounce his last name right. I hate him -mostly because of his followers- yet agree with about 90% of what he says. Then again, I also agree with about 90% of what Ayn Rand says...CorruptUser (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- And now I notice that it's already been through the Afd process where it was kept after an overwhelming 3-all draw. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd just delete the whole thing - it is stupid and embarrassing. Or, maybe, replace it with a simple statement "Nobody's perfect." Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what you think was just demonstrated. I'd just like a simple, uncontroversial list of examples. Phiwum (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- QED.--Arisboch (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Fine by me. Let's strike Chomsky from the list. Other comments? Phiwum (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Too much fanboys of him here. --Arisboch (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Chomsky is a big lightning rod -- some of our folks think he's pretty much on point, others think he's pretty much full of shit all the time. I would leave him off, especially because his political activism has little to do with his actual area of expertise and authority. If he said something crazy about linguistics/the mind, that would be notable in this context. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's a starting point for discussion. Phiwum (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
(reset) My previous comment still applies - some comments/views have to be taken in their historical and others contexts, and 'My pet theory is x/I have a preference for interpretation y' can be valid (and even creative - for the proposer or those setting out to refute the concept). And what happens if someone's 'inverse stopped clock theory' is then proved right (eg the Greek historian who said that X travelling round Africa made the unbelievable claim that the sun rose in the north)? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not at all opposed to deleting the list and/or the page, but in the interim, I've made the changes discussed above. What remains is in desperate need of citations, if the list should survive this discussion. Phiwum (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I am... amazed. Someone managed to finally clean up shorten the list? Let's see for how long this attempt will stick (mine didn't last long). Someone needs to do the same for Stopped clock too. And for the record, I still think that this article should not exist, and the stopped clock one needs to be refocused.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Summing up
Some people in the past had views which were considered reasonable #at the time# but which are now considered dubious (Newton and astrology, 19th century/early 20th century persons and benefits of uranium), disproved science (coal fired Sun, cool Venus) or downright unpleasant.
At times 'science and other developments and the theories thereof' have the potential to evolve in a number of ways (steady state universe or big bang, the Cold War prior to 1989-91) and some people will back the wrong horses.
Most people will have their 'pet theories' of varying degrees of logic/viability etc; and many people will be uncertain how valid a particular viewpoint is (given fashions in theories 'X food stuff is good for you' and then 'avoid X at all cost' followed by 'some X is OK') 'them activists may have a point but they don't half bang on about it a lot.'
None of the above are 'inverse stopped clocks.'
The people who persist in promoting views that are stupid, readily disproved or not even wrong are the issue - and there should be more than 'look at these famous people being idiots' to the article. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)