There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Category talk:Assessing pseudoscience
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I'd like to make this the clearing house cat for logic, etc. Perhaps we can recat this and make a good portal out of it for assessing logical fallacies, woo, etc.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 11:03, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
- Hey Doc, I notice you put this category back "in itself". Brainfart, or is there a reason? humanbe in 20:24, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
- Reason? We don't need no stinkin' reasons! (You mean besides my being an idiot?)--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 20:25, 7 October 2007 (EDT)