Information icon.svg Results are posted for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election.
Thanks to all who participated in the vote, and congratulations to the new moderators!

Talk:Collective Evolution

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Origins and proprietors[edit]

I found a bunch of stuff on previous searches for info about the ownership of the site. Worth adding. tl;dr New Age berts - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and HERO OF THE SOVIET UNION (posthumous) to (S L) for sacrificing his brain to this article! - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Gib me dem links u dum st8ist Sig can you say.png Sig gulag time.png 18:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Also this one was easier to write than the Mind Unhinged one because I knew what I was doing, but still frustrating as hell. Sig can you say.png Sig gulag time.png 18:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A reader complaint[edit]

Interestingly I've been following this site for only about 6 months now and while some stuff is controversial and some is not I wanted to do some further research into it. At first I thought this was an actually WIkipedia page for it, then I realized how immature the writing was a quickly realized it wasn't. While I appreciate the fact you're trying to challenge some of their tougher topics, you're not being very rational or scientific about it so it's hard to take seriously. Just saying. — Unsigned, by: 70.31.42.159 / talk / contribs

Any examples/arguments, or just ranting? TheAtheistComrade (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC) 15:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Refer back to the article look at the immaturity side of it, it's kinda obvious. As for the lack of science, look at the articles posted, it simply claims that stuff is woo but there's nothing to back it up. Most issues they are discussing are very controversial and do have tons of scientists looking into them and finding different results. If you are being true to science, you have to admit that these issues are not black and white as you want to believe they are. I believe sites like RationalWiki are actually harmful to science because they are more about protecting a closed-minded culture than they are about science.. after all, you identify with the word atheist so much you have it in your screen name. Again, I'm not saying everything they post is right, more so that RationalWiki isn't looking at it objectively. Funny thing is, I even tried to edit the article to make it more balanced and less immature, and you guys edited it back. This shows precisely how your emotions run you more than your thinking does.— Unsigned, by: 70.31.42.159 / talk / contribs

Atheist, ergo closeminded? Shoo. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
And your edit made the article neither more factual nor less immature, only creating a false balance. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess you are going to continue the latter. Close mindedness is not refusing to giving equal weight to all stupidity. This is not an atheist club (it seems you're implying that) by any means and my sig is humorous. An idea is not validated simply because some scientists accept it. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
To elaborate (for our anonymous/unregistered company's sake) on the not being an atheist club thing: the official RW policy on religion is that we don't have a policy on religion; in fact, I myself am a Christian, albeit one who is a bit out of the theological mainstream. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
In fact, there is a prominent Wiccan on the site that quickly comes to mind. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Remind me... who is it? WalkerWalkerWalker 17:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A False balance? I changed their description to being a news a media publishing website vs "woo-mongering". How is that a false balance? Do you guys seriously not see that? — Unsigned, by: 70.31.42.159 / talk / contribs

I don't see it. All I see you trying to give cranks undue validity. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If an idea is not validated because scientists accept it then why are you suggesting ideas are validated on the other side of the spectrum when? You guys have made it clear what type of site you are and that's cool. But being part of a scientific community here at my university all I can say is, you're giving a bad name to science and rational thinking. Take care.

1: Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png, on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you.
2: "Chuckle" - you so funny! How you get in to university? Scream!! (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
You are aware there are crank scientists? Right? Also, if you had competence in reading comprehension you'd realize I said "some scientists". Stop with the assertions that you refuse to back up, or you're more than welcomed to LANCB. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming LANCB is for actual rational people who question things properly? You shut them up? Let's pick one thing you had on their list.. Cannabis.. http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2014/11/12/1535-7163.MCT-14-0402.abstract http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/abs/6603236a.html http://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/17/6475.abstract http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/early/2006/05/25/jpet.106.105247 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22594963 have fun. Read through many of them and educate yourself on the fact that cannabis and cannabis oil is being taken extremely seriously by A LOT of scientists and it's becoming very clear it has very real and effective cancer applications. Clinical trials are underway and this research is telling some interesting stuff. But here you'd think it would be crazy to think it works because you guys claim it's "woo." Oh so scientific. Actual Scientist--70.31.42.159 (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you actually check the link you gave? LMFAO. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Now several invalid links. Did you realize the actually scientific ones you gave were by no means conclusive? So they potentially have positive and negative effects on the Human body- that is clearly not the position Collective Evolution is taking. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It's amazing how arrogant this community is lol. I got in because I had an interest in Biology and wanted to study it. I had good grades... same way everyone else gets in. --70.31.42.159 (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Any evidence the "community" is arrogant? You're actually starting to piss me off. It's clear you have no evidence. For somebody so good in biology surely you understand the scientific method? TheAtheistComrade (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at the way you write and respond. I found this article after googling about CE. I came here hoping to find some interesting info and all I found was rubbish. So I decided to challenge it because the site claims to be rational. You provide no evidence to back up the stuff you said the site was wrong about. The whole article is written like some angry 12 year old was venting. Then here in the comments you talk about being balanced when you won't even call the site what it is lol. I feel like I'm talking to a wall a bit right now. --70.31.42.159 (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You're starting to really become annoying. Almost every single major claim about their Woo has a valid reference. You however, continue to use ad hominem and fail to back up what you say. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There's also a number of cool things going on as you can check out here: http://illegallyhealed.com/numerous-human-clinical-trials-of-cannabis-for-cancer-in-2015/ All I'm saying is, before we shut our minds, we need to be open to what's really happening. It's not like this stuff isn't being done out of bad intentions, people are trying to help people.

Wow[edit]

Just wow. Literally every single article looks like one of those advertorial/woo/scam clickbait titles you see pop up in the sidebar on various websites. Oh, and looks like Jim Carrey is still pushing his anti-vaxx bullshit. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What's more interesting is our scientist friend's links don't support his statements. They state more research is needed, potential benefits (he leaves out studies finding numerous potential problems with it's use) and the rest aren't working. I guess were just too close minded. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's pretty apparent they just googled some relevant studies. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
No, we're biased, close minded, arrogant 12 years olds and we're ALL atheists- he is obviously the superior biologist. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)