User:WaitingforGodot/Rational Wiki & social topics

I've been editing on Rational Wiki now, for about 3 years. And most of the topics I edit about are on the social side of things, from feminism, to abortion related topics, to racism, and religion. Over the years, people have asked (both on article talk pages, on my talk page, and in email) why those things are even on rational wiki. Our mission, they say, is to confront pseudo-science not political issues.

When I watch the creation debates, I see specific tactics used by creationists to "get their way", and "prove" Creation. They use bad (pseudo) science, like "flood geology" - whatever that is. They use statistic games. They misrepresent science and scientific theories from the small aspects "Evolution science shows that Soandso's theory isn't right - therefore evo is obviously not right", to the big one "There is a debate amongst scientists about whether or not evolution happened". They misrepresent what their own holy books say, if the audience is receptive to that tack. They use myths, sterotypes, quote mining, and outright lies to make their points.

Anti-Global Warming, Anti-Vaxers, alternative med types, and woo meisters all use the same set of tactics when trying to argue their point.

And, not surprisingly, so do anti-choicers, anti-feminists, racists, homophobs, and a host of others that are represented in an article or two here at RW.

Take, for example, Anti-choicers.
 * pseuod science about the development of fetus: "it can feel pain (before week 24",
 * misrepresentation of science's debates. "Science does not claim to know when a fetus is 'alive', that is a position for moral or ethical debates" becomes "science says a fetus is alive".  The scientific technologies that aid a premature baby become the equivalent of "a fetus can survive at 20 weeks outside the womb". "Women who give birth and breast feed are less likely to develop breast cancer" becomes "abortion causes breast cancer".
 * Statistical manipulation - Women kill themselves after abortion. So, abortion is dangerous.  Of course, women kill themselves after birth, too.  And they are far more likely to attempt suicide after adoption, as it is considered the most emotionally traumatic of the three options.
 * Laws written for teh "protection of women" regulate abortions, cause they are somehow "dangerous", despite the reality that they are less dangerous than birth. More specifically, the exact same procedures done to women who have miscarried (D&C) are allowed in an obgyn's office, with no special regulations, no requirements for ambulatory surgical units, no transfer agreements to local hospitals. Cleary, the procedure itself is not dangerous.

Our mission statement : Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. Documenting the full range of crank ideas. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Seems to me, all of those elements are part of this "social pseudoscience" stuff, as well.