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.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki
“”In fact, i consider myself exsptionally more of a rational man than those of the likes of Rationalwikie and the Libral/Luvvie-Left Bum tart's. [sic]
|—Anglo-Saxon Foundation user "Teutoburg Weald"(link)|
"I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" cry the critics.
The obvious answer is that
RationalWiki is truth incarnate RationalWiki is made by humans, and humans aren't always right. Our articles may be flawed or incomplete or dead wrong.
The obvious followup is that this is also true of our readers (that's you!). You're human, and humans aren't always right. Your views may be flawed or incomplete or dead wrong.
In short: We don't call ourselves "RationalWiki" because we think that our every word is Gospel truth. (Or the atheist equivalent.) We call ourselves RationalWiki because we think we're mostly right -- but if you think you can disprove us, have at it. Whining that "we should call it IrrationalWiki!"( ) is the laziest criticism possible. We already know that we aren't perfect -- tell us why.
I am right, you are wrong
The trouble is, no one ever believes they are thinking irrationally. This is quite easily demonstrated, because whether we like it or not, in the mind of pretty much every single person in the world is a little script that reads like so:
“”I am right, everything I think is right. This much is obvious because I wouldn't think something if it was wrong, would I? If I could point to an opinion of mine and say "that's wrong, and very irrational", I would simply stop thinking it and discard it. As this is empirically true, we can safely define "right" as "whatever I think" — making whatever I think right. Therefore, if you don't think like me, you are very much wrong by definition. QED bitches.
This leads to an impasse where two (or more) parties can each believe, quite firmly, that they are being rational and the other is being irrational. Nine times out of ten, when someone is verbally accusing you of being irrational, they're actually just accusing you of disagreeing with them.
"Rational" as a word doesn't just mean an appeal to logic and reason (though anyone putting too much trust in a dictionary would undoubtedly spit this definition back). "Rational" also suggests that a "rational" person, far from just "appealing to logic and reason", is very much intellectually superior and absolutely 100% correct and justified.
Of course, this is ridiculous. Nobody has ever got everything correct, ever. Sources that screw up but still try to provide the truth are better than no sources at all. Just because science has been wrong before doesn't mean that science isn't worth a damn. (If you disagree, please consider what device you're reading this on.)
Obviously, RationalWiki is different. We're the cream of the crop. OK? We're 100% correct and never make mistakes. That's why we have this. And this. And this. And this and this and this. And, of the most relevance, this.
Calm and rational
There is also a small but significant confusion between appearing rational and appearing as a calm, Zen-like figure of reason, so those with a sharp tongue or a good eye for snark may well be accused of being "irrational" too regardless of their actual content. But again, this isn't the case and accusing someone of being "irrational" for using laconic or foul language is fallacious, i.e. the tone argument.
In hindsight, "RationalWiki" was probably a bad choice of words, but "SkepticWiki" was already taken, "Skeptical Empiricist Wiki" isn't catchy, and "Liberapedia" is just embarrassing (by name and nature). What else could it have been?
“”Real rational people don't need to label themselves as rational. So a so called rational wiki is necessarily full of bullshit.
|—/u/katabn, commenting in /r/TheRedPill, which has promoted The Rational Male (book) for 3 years()|
|—Encyclopedia Dramatica at its best( )|
This is a very common criticism. (No, really.) Here are some quotes:
- It's too atheist
- Ah, IrrationalWiki and TalkOrigins. Two biased Atheist-driven think tanks. Wikipedia is unreliable anyway. Look up Michael Behe.( )
- This section is so skewed with anti Fundamentalist rhetoric that is is obviously not scholarly. So much for Rational!( )
- "Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king." Tywin Lannister[.] Similarly[,] any site that must call itself rational isn't truly rational.( )
- It's too anti-racist
- Considering racism as irrational is itself irrational( )
- Calling All Writers! Operation: Irrational Wiki( )
- It's too anti-conspiracist
- Rationalwiki is a CIA-sponsored propaganda website posing as a rational critic.( )
- For 'Rational', read: utterly unsceptical of the propaganda one is raised with — or why else would mainstream news sources not be similarly ridiculed? — combined with a wholly misplaced arrogance that such a stance represents the 'truth' and everything else 'bullshit'.( )
- What RationalWiki really is[:] A bunch of people irrationally thinking they know what anything really is.( )
- YOU ARE (allegedly) PAID TROLLS AND YOU KNOW IT.( )
- RationalWiki (nicknamed IrrationalWiki) and Wikis on politics tend to have a certain viewpoint, such as Wikipedia is mainstream US liberalism. Conservapedia is mainstream US conservatism. For IrrationalWiki, it is pro-neo-Marxism, pro-Globalism, and the hypocritical position that conspiracy theories are hoaxes.( )
- I didn't know Skepticism consisted in unquestioning [sic] the views that are taken for granted by the majority. Try BandwagonWiki, it's available.( )
- It's too liberal
- IrrationalWiki is a load of bullshit. Politically Correct culture at its worst. It literally bashes anything that isn't mainstream feminist-approved far-left bullshit.( )
- The name RationalWiki is the most disgusting euphemism. It's like the Ministry of Peace in 1984. It's the headquarters [What a compliment!] of batshit crazy SJWism.( )
- Go take a look at "RationalWiki" to see what happens when radical feminists and SJWs take control of your wiki.( )
- It's too
- Comrades! The rationalwiki article on communism fucking sucks.( )
- Rationalwiki is not so rational when it comes to politics after all. At least they are still good for debunking anti-science stuff.( )
- Rationalwiki has always been filled with smug liberals that claim to be neutral. I'm not drunk enough for their shit.( )
- Rationalwiki's pages on communism, AKA, a hive of smug liberalism( )
- It's too feminist
- I know you people are fruitcakes but try to aim for some semblance of rationalism. [....] No wonder your icon looks like a brain starved of oxygen.( )
- If it's a group and women are present... don't bother with logic. It's irrelevant to the feels[.] Also usually true for groups that boast about being logical. (cough rationalwiki cough)( )
- Why not call that wiki autismwiki instead of rationalwiki?.( )
- Rationalwiki? - More like Irrationalwiki( )
- It's not feminist enough
- I thought rationalwiki was rational, I see them make all the same fallacies as libfems who've never read any radical literature.( )
- Think of rationalwiki as wikipedia without reliable sources and edited almost entirely by MRAs and Trans Activists.( )
- So, my blog was recently linked to from the ‘Rational’ Wiki talk page on "TERFs". The person said that my blog is "useful for debunking practice". I've seen no comments forthcoming from him or any other anti-feminist trans activists (AFTAs) on my blog, so one wonders.( )
- 'Rational' Wiki's irrational article on radical feminism( )