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 !
- Personally, I'm just amused by the title on the talk page. --Kels 18:44, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
- Not sure what to say... I suppose they could be merged, as I think it a safe bet that if scholarly books have been written on the subject, it's probably a good article for the main namespace. As it stands the two have different focuses, but I guess the only real problem is how much snark we want in regular articles. Given that snark is a popular debunking tool, I wouldn't shy away from it as long as it's reasonably justifiable logically. EVDebs 18:48, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
"Also See" (as was just done) is also fine with me. Maybe each article should have a heading, though - "this is "serious", for humour, see" and "This is pure snark, for the truth see". So people know what they are editing, otherwise they'll end up very redundant, eh? Also, can we have a linknote thing on P&T's retractions, if possible? humanbe in 18:56, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
Hadn't realised that Andy S was a 'bull' but judging by his faeces lying about all over cp he must be:-
- "Bullshitting is usually when one makes statements that are false, or made-up. Usually people describe other people's action of making a lot of statements as bullshitting in arguments, when one is making up rules or making examples that are not anything to do with what they are discussing or when one is making statements by using examples that need different rules to be applied, so this person is bullshitting" (WP quote)
I'd also like to see more on P&T's retractions -- I'm mostly a fan of their show, but there have been a few things that have annoyed me, and it'd be nice if those match up well with what they've retracted. --jtltalk 19:52, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, I enjoyed most I rented and watched, but one or two topics were, well, snarky, ad hominem hit-jobs. But then again, maybe they were just goring my pet ox, eh? That's why I want to see them, too. PS, what annoyed you? humanbe in 20:06, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
- Oh, sure, expect me to remember what I was annoyed by...You don't have any right to ask me questions! Lesse...in the Wal-Mart episode, although I mostly agree with them (Wal-Mart isn't evil, but it is unpleasant and I choose not to shop there), I think they cherry-picked the t-shirt-making opponents to make that side look worse than it is; the ADA episode didn't make a very strong argument, I thought. There were others, but I'm not remembering now what they were. --jtltalk 20:18, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
- 1 Here is a citation.
- 2 Commenting here because rollback doesn't let you comment :(
- 3 This page title should be changed to "Beefshit"
- 4 The last two paragraphs of the "bullshit and philosophy" section
- 5 What about the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit?
- 6 What about the AVGN "You know what's bullshit?"
- 7 FCP mentioned this
Here is a citation.
http://www.petehamill.com/lars-erik%20nelson.html. That is where it came from. There are other sites that attribute the qoute to Larson, such as this one.— Unsigned, by: Aimless Blaster / talk / contribs
Copied from article:
The enemy isn't liberalism, the enemy isn't conservatism, the enemy is bullshit.- Lars-Erik Nelson<ref>http://www.petehamill.com/lars-erik%20nelson.html.</ref>
Copied from "source": "“The enemy isn’t liberalism,” he said to me once. “The enemy isn’t conservatism. The enemy is bullshit.” "
That's a source like "someone once said to me at dinner" - IE, not a source. Look, I like the quote, but we either need to just say it without attribution (it's a pretty broad idea), or actually cite it to the first person who said it. If we just say it, fine. No need for quotey boxes and all. ħuman 00:46, 5 February 2009 (EST)
- Also, please start signing your comments with the four tilde thing, please? Other sites may attribute it, but are any of them less of "some guy's blog" than this one? ħuman 00:48, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Commenting here because rollback doesn't let you comment :(
I reverted the comma out of grammatical necessity - all cattle are Bos taurus, removing the comma implies B. taurus is just one variety. Totnesmartin 17:43, 5 February 2009 (EST)
- But if Bos taurus == cattle, and you want to say "cattle of the male persuasion", then you'd say "Bos taurus of the male persuasion", then insert (cattle) after Bos taurus for those who don't know binomial nomenclature, no? Or if you want to say "cattle, of the male persuasion", then it should be "Bos taurus (cattle), of the male persuasion" -- Nx talk 18:05, 5 February 2009 (EST)
This page title should be changed to "Beefshit"
The last two paragraphs of the "bullshit and philosophy" section
What about the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit?
RationalWiki might have a look at adding to this page as more research on bullshit is coming out.
21:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
What about the AVGN "You know what's bullshit?"
http://avgn.wikia.com/wiki/You_Know_What's_Bullshit Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
FCP mentioned this
http://www.scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/12/30/2016-the-year-bullshit-was-weaponized/ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)