|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Forum:Honestly, RationalWiki really doesn't know **** about ****.
I just got done reading the "appeal to nature" page and you guys really are clueless dunderheads. I really hope you are playing devil's advocate or "begging the question" as it were because you seriously could not think this is a rational page.
Natural doesn't mean "a plant found in nature", natural broadly means something that is found in the wild rather than created in a lab. Often this is better, for example real bananas are more likely to be better for you than artificial banana flavouring.
Just because something's natural does not mean it's better. That's what the natural fallacy says. It doesn't say anything about the merit of switching a product humans have evolved with or a natural product - of course the word "natural" is very often not clearly defined - with an artificial one.
Every time some vitamin or something else natural is shown as having any good properties, you have extreme skepticism and reluctance, often outright denial, and there's never any snarkiness about people who were proved wrong. Similar when something like medical x-rays have been shown to induce cancer, no snarkiness or colourful language. Meanwhile whenever some claims of something natural being better have proven overly-optimistic - even when there's a valid scientific mechanism involved - oh gawd let's have some fun with a massive "snarky" streak because the website allows for being snarky as it adds character to the website.
If you just said something about the likes of homeopathy and acupuncture being nonsense, fine. But no, you have to take a sledgehammer approach. Everything is in your grand vision of "science" or nonsense.
I would read the "natural" page, but I'm literally afraid what I'd find there. SuperInfinity (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- How many times does one need to tell folk that this is a wiki, its content is the result of numerous editors' efforts and will continue to change. If you wish to input to a particular article either edit it directly or discuss your point(s) on the relevant 'talk' page. Scream!! (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- This. Also, nice example of "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! (too bad, I'm headed for work and it's a dry workplace) --dx (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nice example of overusing a meme that I created to avoid addressing points somebody wanted to raise. Most certainly NOT what the "drink" meme was created for, and I regret it every time it gets abused that way. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what points are being made here outside of the usual gripes about RW's snarky tone and biasing towards the scientific mainstream. --Inquisitor (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- What you said. <What I typed before edit-conflict: Because you found constructive points in the OP's rant? Sorry, but I've got little patience for people who trot out a drive-by "you're supposed to be rational" rant and expect us to do all the work. I'll revert my opinion the day they add something to the article. (I've got plenty of beef with parts of RW myself, until I get the courage to try and edit them, I don't go creating discussions on how you're all not rational and let you all do the work for me - of course you should, aren't you all telepaths?)> --dx (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- A drive by? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- What you said. <What I typed before edit-conflict: Because you found constructive points in the OP's rant? Sorry, but I've got little patience for people who trot out a drive-by "you're supposed to be rational" rant and expect us to do all the work. I'll revert my opinion the day they add something to the article. (I've got plenty of beef with parts of RW myself, until I get the courage to try and edit them, I don't go creating discussions on how you're all not rational and let you all do the work for me - of course you should, aren't you all telepaths?)> --dx (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what points are being made here outside of the usual gripes about RW's snarky tone and biasing towards the scientific mainstream. --Inquisitor (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nice example of overusing a meme that I created to avoid addressing points somebody wanted to raise. Most certainly NOT what the "drink" meme was created for, and I regret it every time it gets abused that way. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- This. Also, nice example of "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! (too bad, I'm headed for work and it's a dry workplace) --dx (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- SuperInfinity's ire seems to have been caused by a point in appeal to nature that wasn't very well thought-out, as pointed out on the talk page... in 2013. Despite the talk, nobody bothered to do something about it until now. Unfortunately, generalizing from this in the way SI did is not very well thought-out either. ;) --ZooGuard (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- No way am I going to ****ing edit a ****ing article on a ****ing subject I know **** all about. But that's just me. I only ****ing edit where I think I can ****ing add some ****ing value. And as other ****ers have said, Rational****ingWiki knows **** all. It merely ****ing displays what ****ing editors have ****ing posted. (Hint to OP in there perhaps?) ProblemChimp (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)