Talk:Inverse stopped clock/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 10 May 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

How's this?

"Even an atomic clock is wrong once every few million years". TheSocktor (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Dylan

If his becoming a born again Christian isn't the canonical example of what this article is supposed to be about, I don't know what is. But whatever. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's just a religious belief so it's just kind of dickish to add it, though if he was a fundie it would be different. If you really feel it's necessary though add it, but I wouldn't advise it. ClothCoat (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hitch

Hitch wasn't merely a chickenhawk in the gung-ho kind of way we expect from that term. He produced pro-war arguments based on having researched the situation in Iraq and concluding that the regions best interests would have been served by disposing of Saddam Hussein. If you're going to have this as a term, you cannot just say "this is when people disagree with me", they have to do so for a batshit crazy reason that is unexpected. In this case, Hitchens produced a researched argument and happened to land pro-war side. It's not in the same league as random liberals suddenly turning into paranoid Truthers (which seems to be the recurring theme of the list). ^gnostic 11:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I can sorta see your point, although Hitch isn't the example I would have brought up. This list seems to be cluttered up with subjective "I don't like their non-Really Serious People politics" entries (for example, Penn and Teller being libertarian advocates of laissez-faire, Hunter Thompson being an admirer of Che Guevara). Examples of what does belong would be otherwise rational, skeptical people believing in telepathy, astrology, or becoming born again Christians. Secret Squirrel (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

P&T are probably better examples of the trope in action. Though not for their libertarian bent (their ability to confuse skepticism and their own political leanings is an annoyance, but it isn't fundamentally wrong) - they've been climate change denialists and have denied the link between passive smoking and cancer despite mountains of evidence. And the respective episodes of Bullshit! on those topics weren't up to much. I mean, seriously, there are some absolutely terrible episodes of that show to pick on. However, they have both recounted their positions on that sort of thing since, which I think makes the trope stronger there because it underlines it as a "blip" of sorts. ^postate 12:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, P&T should be mentioned for their views on global warming and smoking. But not for merely being libertarians. Back to Hitch: he did slide over as I recall into a level of Islamophobia that went beyond merely the atheist-criticizing-all-religionists sort. Secret Squirrel (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(1). As far as most economists are concerned laissez-faire is somewhat cranky and we even criticize it on this wiki as to why it's kind of nutty, but I still took it out. (2) It doesn't matter that Hitch looked at research if he still turned out wrong about Iraq, seeing as how the region has become less stable since Saddam was removed. Militias (possibly funded by Iran) have gained power in the area and we have to leave due to debt it has caused the nation. It was a short sighted plan and even many right-leaning foreign policy experts will agree on that. If Hitch is wrong, no matter the cause, it still goes under inverse stopped clock. I would say the Islamophobia would be a better example, however. (3) Yes there are varying degrees of crazy wrong, as is stated in the article, so it really doesn't mean anything if Chickenhawks are listed with Truthers , just because it's the same list doesn't mean they're equally as crazy. (4)I have a really good idea, instead of people complaining about the article they could hit the "edit" button and fix it, as opposed to just complaining on the talk page and then doing/contributing nothing. ClothCoat (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that many people here erroneously conflate scepticism/atheism with a particular political worldview. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Not too bothered about Hitch. He was an amazing person but he did have some odd ideas. Just like with Einstein, you take the god with the bad. Perhaps add on Newton as he on the one side was pure scientific genius, on the other wrote whole teatrices about religion that nobody knows about, and even religious people consider crazy. For Hitch, perhaps primarily add the communist and pro-war bits. Point is indeed that he either changed his mind (communism) or was wrong (war). What sources do we have for sexism etc? That brings me to a secobd point: why have all of these people without references? Even the wikipedia entry has them! Besides there are some who probably was added simply because someone didn't like them. Read up on Dawkins, for instance, who in no way is apologetic for paedophilia. I think none of the people accused of Islamophobia should be there either. It's not exactly rocket science to conclude that of the three worst groups of religions on earth, Islam is the worst mainly because it has the most religious followers. None of these people are against Muslims, just the atrocious ideology that comes from Islamists. You can't say we're lacking evidence that Islam most certainly isn't the religion of peace! //Leord 94.197.120.203 (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Cuckoo clock

I've always referred to the opposite of a stopped clock as a "cuckoo clock," as in the clock works fine, but every now and then a little cuckoo comes out of it. -Shtrominer (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey that's actually better, I've been trying to think of something better to call it but nothing came to mind. Anyone else think we should rename it? ClothCoat (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a good name but inverse stopped clock sounds more powerful. Why not add it as "also called xxx" at the top paragraph as ler normal Wikipedia articles? Sorry I'm not logged in, not sure if the Wikipedia login works. Either way, I'm on mobile, so a hassle to log in. I'm usually Leord online. 94.197.120.203 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

On Frege

So, why was the entry about well-known logician Gottlob Frege turning out to be a Nazi sympathizer at the end of his life deleted? The diary in which he expresses these views have been published, making it a verifiable claim, and if becoming a Nazi isn't an example of this phenomenon, then nothing is. --User:BrendanRizzo, 31 January 2014 00:36 (UCT)

Benefits of hindsight

Some of the examples given may have been 'reasonable speculation or beliefs' #at the time# - eg late 19th-early 20th centuries extrapolating from 'X-rays, photography, sound recordings and radio' to ESP and communicating with the dead, or Fred Hoyle and the steady state universe/big bang debate. And - the cobbler's views may well be right ('the object is well crafted'/the critics know nowt about what rubbish has been cobbled together').

A distinction should be made between 'inverse stopped clock' and 'my pet mad theory is...' (the speaker knows it is slightly daft/offbeat etc, but is amused by the possibility). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. For example, in Mark Twain's lifetime, telepathy hadn't been debunked, had it? For that matter, when Harvey Milk supported Jim Jones, it wasn't known how crazy Jones was, right? I don't think that came out until just before Jones fled the country. Thanos6 (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And at the time of Isaac Newton 'astrology, alchemy and related topics' #were# current scientific theory and were no more 'wrong' than the late 19th century theory that the Sun was powered by coal (paraphrasing) and would burn out in X million years, habitable Venus in the early 20th century, Original Star Trek with no small computers/internet- and Wiki- equivalents etc. If a theory is plausible/reasonable #at the time/with then current knowledge# its proponents should not be derided. It is only those who persist in a view on certain subjects long after they have been disproved who should be derided.

'If sentience emerged once in the universe, it should happen more than once' is perfectly logical; 'just because we have not developed ftl-travel-equivalent doesn't mean other species haven't already done so' is likewise but less; 'aliens may have visited the Earth in the past/the present (galactic safari tours, the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy's young-tearaways, and scientists) may be feasible - but that they would persist in performing the same experiments on ordinary or offbeat people (rather than 'borrowing' scientists, or recruiting local agents for their goods and services) is not. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Examples section...

...needs serious clean-up. I didn't really like the concept of this article in the first place, but if we're going to keep it, that section needs to be cleaned up. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I put in in alphabetical order by last name but did you have another idea? And I really like this article because a) it warns that skeptics can still be occasionally mistaken no matter how much you respect them so you have to keep on your toes and b)it talks about how these people are used as an appeal to authority by cranks. ClothCoat (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Since it's basically a listicle of "people who disagreed with me", it might be even easier just to euthanise it rather than spend time clearing it. The best option to salvage it is just keep a sub-section of stopped clock with 3-4 prominent examples kept. ^pathetic 09:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the concept of the stopped clock and the inverse stopped clock either. It starts from the premise that those who are frequently wrong will say things that are probably wrong, then goes on to say "but wait, sometimes they are right!" and vice versa (they are often right, but sometimes they may be wrong!). And that's literally all these articles do. Whoop-de-doo. Nullahnung (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the listicle nature, there are entries that are pretty dubious -- e.g. a psychologist whose ideas are mostly discarded (Freud), a guy who made a dumb post on his blog once and quickly retracted who is now labeled a AGW denier (Randi), a comedian who has allegedly "given voice" to truthers (George Carlin, who AFAIK, had no involvement w/ truthers) etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

On top of that, there are some here that I would not particularly consider all-around rational excepting in one or two areas, e.g. Maher or Harris. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion and splitting off Ultracrepidarian(ism)

As various people have pointed out above, this is a really nebulous concept that seems to boil down to "people that 'we' are supposed to agree with sometimes say/do something 'we' are supposed to disagree with". In addition to being just list-bait (or list-bating...), it's not the opposite of a "stopped clock". A stopped clock is when someone is right by making the same statement/following the same line of "thought" that is usually wrong. E.g. someone who serially accuses people of being Communist spies can be "right" in a few instances when the accused is actually a Communist spy. The "inverse stopped clock" then would be a situation when someone is "wrong" by doing the same behaviour that is usually right. E.g. a skeptic that debunks UFO sightings who "debunks" a sighting of an actual alien spacecraft. The point in both cases that there's no rational proces going on - it's not "true knowledge", or whatever philosophers call it. And "ultracrepidarianism" seems to be an unrelated term for people who stray from their area of expertise but still expect to be (considered as) relevant, which is related to Nobel disease and argument from authority.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Stopped clock isn't just about people being occasionally right within the context of their crank theory. It's also how some people (for example, a crazed libertarian that wants to privatize the police) who are otherwise batshit can have moments where we're like "oh wow, he's actually right about that, and quite insightful."--"Shut up, Brx." 16:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... on the one hand, the concept this article describes seems a bit pointless. Just because we have stopped clock doesn't mean we need to have an article on the inverse - you can theoretically construct an inverse to quite many concepts, after. On the other hand, IMO it's exactly that list which might be the article's saving grace. Pointing out how even people we like can are fallible and have been wrong on occasion, that seems like a very sceptic thing to do to me. So, I'm undecided on this...Octo8 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yes, if the libertarian's "insigtful" positions stem from the same ideals/thought processes that their "crazed" ones also do, then it's covered by my definition of a stopped clock.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean like when Lord Kelvin said that "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"? TheSocktor (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. And restore Ultracrepidarian(ism). Possible under better name.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

   If you know a better name, go for it, but ultracrepidarian is what it is, someone who has gotten used to being an authority on a subject, and who thinks that makes what they pull out of their ass carry the weight of that authority. Not any kind of stopped clock, really. I'd like to see Ultracrepidarian restored as its own article, but am willing to wait for someone else to do that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

2. I think there is a significant difference between what our articles think the definition of a stopped and inverse stopped clock is and what ZooGuard thinks the definition should be. So I don't quite agree with ZooGuard's reasoning for deletion. I will still vote for deletion, though, since the clock concepts seem rather useless and uninteresting whereas Ultracrepidarian as an article seems much more interesting and useful. Nullahnung (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
3. I'm also not a huge fan of this article, as I think the concept is too vague. Many, many people have some small subset of views that the wider world would consider crazy, so I agree with Nullahnung in that the idea of an inverse stopped clock isn't terrible interesting on its own merits. - Grant (Talk) 19:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep

1. Addressing the fact that some people, rational and decent in every respect but totally off the rails in some way, seems perfectly fine for this wiki. Mentioning some such persons in this article, linking to this article from other pages, and perhaps even creating a category seems like a good way to go.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

   What you mean is better described as "feet of clay", "everyone is fallible", "have no idols" or something of the sort. It shouldn't be in the "logic" category, because "appeal to authority" already covers the logic/rhetoric aspects of that.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

2. As I created this article in the first place I guess I should step in. Firstly, I really like the list. It's not only an interesting read but it shows how we are willing to question people who we usually agree with, which is good. Secondly, it's good for when a crank says "HA Richard Dawkins even agree with me on (blank), know skeptics have to agree with me", and in turn we can just point to this article. Anyways, I just saw a suggestion for this page on the stopped clock talk page and was trying to be helpful when I created it so I'm sorry I upset everyone. ClothCoat (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

   I don't see a lot of upset happening here. I've got mixed feelings on the subject, and I've edited the "delete" heading to make that clearer, I hope. My interest is more in preserving the ultracrepidarian bit, which I believe was folded into this article by mistake. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

   Yeah, maybe we should keep the list in some form. Some of the examples are probably applicable to the Ultracrepidarian article, and that would be interesting to point out. (Examples of authoritative figures wandering about outside of their area of expertise and saying dumb things? Label them as ultracrepidarian!) My main gripe is with the overall concept of this article and the stopped clock article. Nullahnung (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the content is good to have around in a clearly articulated form. That said, I don't particularly care where it goes, whether here, a subsection in the stopped clock article, or somewhere else. Same with ultracrepidarianism. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

1. This article covers when otherwise reasonable people support pseudoscience, believe in conspiracy theories, or hold racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. views. This is not synonymous with ultracrepidarianism (talking about things beyond one's field of expertise), although it often involves it, because there is such a thing as willful ignorance. It is possible for someone to be well-informed on a particular subject — to know all the available facts — but still reach a conclusion that's wrong. -Shtrominer (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

   Why does it matter that they're otherwise reasonable? When you're wrong, you're wrong, regardless of what your reputation might be. Do we really need an article to elaborate on that kind of tautology? It seems so trivial. Nullahnung (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Rationality is sort of like built-in error detection and correction. It helps people weed out irrational ideas. Of course, we're all wrong from time to time, and I'm pretty sure everyone has an irrational idea or two rattling around in their head, but the point is that the "cuckoo clock" phenomenon (as I like to call it) goes beyond simple human frailty. The mechanisms that guard against irrational thinking have completely failed, but only on one particular subject, and we can't just easily chalk that failure up to "nobody's perfect." There's a reason, and that reason tells us something about the person. But I do think scale is important. There's a difference between an otherwise rational person privately reading their horoscope and a rational person publicly advancing 9/11 conspiracy theories. -Shtrominer (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Long-eared jerboa Goat

• I think this is a decent topic and a decent article too, but I don't see a lot of potential for expansion. I would support merging with the original stopped clock article. I also don't think it's quite the same thing as ultracre-whatever. The section we have here even says that that term is just about people talking outside their area of expertise, so (hypothetically) a mediocre engingeer spouting bullshit about racial realism would be an ultrathing but not an inverse stopped clock. So that really ought to be a separate topic entirely. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 21:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• The concept isn't bad but some of the examples are terrible. If we stuck to cases where people have had cranky ideas in what we could expect to their area of expertise, it would be OK. Examples suggesting that scientific innovators are also supposed to be wise authorities on politics, and vice-versa, do us no favours. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Afd

Kept per RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Inverse stopped clock. Sophie^Wilder 18:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

chomsky is not a genocide denialist - the claims of this were cooked up using fraudulent editing practices and blatant lies

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20051113.htm

if you look at the materials you will find that the claims that he did so are wildly misrepresented in one case he wasn't even talking about massacres or genocides to begin with in one of the claim sources (srebrenica in that case), and as for the other, it puts "ironic quotation marks" where there were none to begin with as chomsky pointed out, which is dishonest practice in quoting - making it look like chomsky has disdain for the word "massacre" when it is used in regards to the bosnian situation - the word genocide doesn't show up in the first place in the interview he had with the slanderer brocke

in terms of cambodia, he made a critique of someone's work and called for more information on the matter (this was as it was developing - and in fact his critique was well received by the person who wrote on the matter) - this is known as "checking the facts" or "not jumping to conclusions on incomplete evidence" and is a common thing for legitimate academic work

here is chomsky specifically referencing the the genocide

http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2005/419-smearing-chomsky-the-guardian-in-the-gutter.html

It took just minutes searching the internet for us to find numerous quotes that flatly contradict Brockes’s claims. For example, in his January/February 2005 article, ‘Imperial Presidency,’ Chomsky described the November 2004 US assault on Falluja as involving “war crimes for which the political leadership could be sentenced to death under US law”. He added:

“One might mention at least some of the recent counterparts that immediately come to mind, like the Russian destruction of Grozny 10 years ago, a city of about the same size. Or Srebrenica, almost universally described as ‘genocide’ in the West. In that case, as we know in detail from the Dutch government report and other sources, the Muslim enclave in Serb territory, inadequately protected, was used as a base for attacks against Serb villages, and when the anticipated reaction took place, it was horrendous. The Serbs drove out all but military age men, and then moved in to kill them.” (Chomsky, ‘Imperial Presidency,’ Canadian Dimension, January/February 2005)

Similarly, on p.208 of his book Hegemony or Survival (Hamish Hamilton, 2003), Chomsky also refers to the Srebrenica massacre - no quotation marks were used either there or in the index.

Hm...This doesn't sound like inversed stopped clock so much as misinterpretation. I'll axe it pending a stronger argument that he really is some sort of denier. Zero (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Fry's example

"Stephen Fry's bizarre comments that women dislike sex and only sleep with men "because sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship.""

I have no words...Sensual Endeavor, the sexy pony ;) (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I thought the list was deleted a long time ago.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 09:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Would Bill Clinton's signing the DOMA count?

Would that be an example, even though he's said it was his greatest mistake? ^{— Unsigned, by: BlackProg / talk / contribs}

The fact that he admits fault makes me think it wouldn't count. Being unapologetic about it to me is what causes the ISC. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind the fact that ISC is an ill-defined piece of crap of a term, there is nothing "is-usually-reasonable" about Bill Clinton and even if he were a beacon of truth and reason, being wrong about something at any point of time should, sticking close to the clock & time analogy, constitute ISC regardless of apology. Nullahnung (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Bill Maher sexism

What sexist comments has Bill Maher made? I knew that he was a vaccine denialist and that he didn't like GMOs but I don't remember him making any sexist comments (though I don't watch real time religiously so I might have missed something.) Samstr (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about his sexism, but the volume of shit he says should put him in the stopped clock article, rather than this one. Space Turbo (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is Karl Marx on this list?

Is he seriously considered to be one of those people who are generally reputable? 75.82.181.255 (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

He's still highly influential in academia in general, particularly in the social sciences and literary theory. Not to mention his influence on "softer" socialist movements, i.e., social democracy. 129.100.198.196 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is he's as much an "academic" source on economics the way a physicist is an "academic" source on biology. He is one of many many MANY people of the 19th century with a crackpot idea about how the world would/should/shall work. Much in the same way we have all the crackpots and cranks today; society changes, people don't. The underlying problems of the 19th century were very much real, where many workers would envy much of the third world today, and economics was still in its infancy, so you can't really blame him for what is obviously wrong now (e.g., the "labor value theory" comes to mind). But you can blame his followers who DO have access to things like post-Keynesian economic theories yet still insist that Marx is infallible in spite of every single flavor of communism leaving a foul taste in everyone's mouth. At this point, Communism is a(n atheistic) religion. CorruptUser (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Another embarrassing list encouraging editors to add their pet peeves

Am I the only one who thinks that lists of examples, with no clear criterion for inclusion, are an embarrassment to RationalWiki? People add whatever examples are their favorites, without end, so that the examples are triple the size of the actual text. Female celebrities endorse PETA? Who the fuck cares? Who considers garden variety celebrities experts in anything other than their own entertainment specialties? Charlie Hebdo endorsing psychoanalysis?

Bah. Can we cut this shit out? Come up with, say, a dozen of the most compelling or surprising examples, examples in which the person is widely acknowledged for his wisdom or expertise and in which his opinion is uncontroversially wrong and he should have known better (Newton's alchemy doesn't count in my book), and stop viewing this list as an excuse to give our own opinions about the merits of PETA or psychoanalysis.

Much thanks. Phiwum (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are the ones I think are actually reasonable. Every entry should be cited.

• John Quincy Adams (the Hollow Earth thing is surprising)
• Maybe one or two global warming deniers, but not a dozen. Aldrin is fine, others would work.
• Attenborough
• Barnard
• One or two holocaust deniers. Barnes, as a historian, seems like a reasonable choice.
• Maybe Chomsky, but honestly he says so many nutty things in the realm of politics that I'm not sure he counts.
• Dawkins perhaps, but we'd better have clear citations of his "outlandish statements"
• Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, definitely
• Maybe Heidegger
• Nast seems to have an interesting irony
• Paine?
• Rousseau
• Gore Vidal
• Alfred Russell Wallace

That's a starting point for discussion. Phiwum (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Chomsky is a big lightning rod -- some of our folks think he's pretty much on point, others think he's pretty much full of shit all the time. I would leave him off, especially because his political activism has little to do with his actual area of expertise and authority. If he said something crazy about linguistics/the mind, that would be notable in this context. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Too much fanboys of him here. --Arisboch (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. Let's strike Chomsky from the list. Other comments? Phiwum (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

QED.--Arisboch (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you think was just demonstrated. I'd just like a simple, uncontroversial list of examples. Phiwum (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd just delete the whole thing - it is stupid and embarrassing. Or, maybe, replace it with a simple statement "Nobody's perfect." Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

And now I notice that it's already been through the Afd process where it was kept after an overwhelming 3-all draw. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wish that he wasn't worshipped/quoted by people who can't even pronounce his last name right. I hate him -mostly because of his followers- yet agree with about 90% of what he says. Then again, I also agree with about 90% of what Ayn Rand says...CorruptUser (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(reset) My previous comment still applies - some comments/views have to be taken in their historical and others contexts, and 'My pet theory is x/I have a preference for interpretation y' can be valid (and even creative - for the proposer or those setting out to refute the concept). And what happens if someone's 'inverse stopped clock theory' is then proved right (eg the Greek historian who said that X travelling round Africa made the unbelievable claim that the sun rose in the north)? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all opposed to deleting the list and/or the page, but in the interim, I've made the changes discussed above. What remains is in desperate need of citations, if the list should survive this discussion. Phiwum (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am... amazed. Someone managed to finally clean up shorten the list? Let's see for how long this attempt will stick (mine didn't last long). Someone needs to do the same for Stopped clock too. And for the record, I still think that this article should not exist, and the stopped clock one needs to be refocused.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Stopped clock is another nasty, awful mess. I'm not sure I'm willing to do the same there as here yet, just because I'm not sure whether this was worth my time yet anyway. I have a suspicion that, in a short while, this list will revert to the same mess it was a little while ago. Phiwum (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Summing up

Some people in the past had views which were considered reasonable #at the time# but which are now considered dubious (Newton and astrology, 19th century/early 20th century persons and benefits of uranium), disproved science (coal fired Sun, cool Venus) or downright unpleasant.

At times 'science and other developments and the theories thereof' have the potential to evolve in a number of ways (steady state universe or big bang, the Cold War prior to 1989-91) and some people will back the wrong horses.

Most people will have their 'pet theories' of varying degrees of logic/viability etc; and many people will be uncertain how valid a particular viewpoint is (given fashions in theories 'X food stuff is good for you' and then 'avoid X at all cost' followed by 'some X is OK') 'them activists may have a point but they don't half bang on about it a lot.'

None of the above are 'inverse stopped clocks.'

The people who persist in promoting views that are stupid, readily disproved or not even wrong are the issue - and there should be more than 'look at these famous people being idiots' to the article. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of particular examples

JonCGerald re-added Hitchens "because he's Hitchens". Call me crazy, but I think that's the sort of reasoning that led to the bloated mess we already had. Let's talk about additions before adding them.

Now, I don't mind if we get rid of Barnes and Irving, because I don't think they count as inverse stopped clocks. At least Irving (don't know Barnes) is a guy who became known primarily for his butt-wrong opinion to the neglect of his previous work. That's not a guy who made an uncharacteristic blunder. The blunder was, in the end, what he was known for.

So, if you want to trade out Barnes and Irving for Hitchens, I wouldn't mind. But let's not just add new examples without discussion, because it leads to godawful bloat and looks unrestrained and embarrassing.

Much thanks. Phiwum (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I just re-added Michio Kaku (without the Trekkie snark) because he looks like a quintessential exemplar of the type. Why was he removed? Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

He was removed because there are a million possible examples, and if everyone adds their own favorite example, we end up with a horrible mess, a list longer than the article body itself. If you want to add Kaku, and he's not a bad example, then let's trim someone else. I think the holocaust deniers could be trimmed, because Irving simply stopped being an authority at all once he went down that rabbit hole.

Here's what the page looks like if we all add our favorite examples without discussion. Phiwum (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is far better than the pussyfooting we have now.--Arisboch (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

[ec] I don't know from Irving, so meh. I'm not fond of the idea that there are only so many spots on the list, so each addition needs a compensating removal. Then again, I agree with ZooGuard that this article could vanish with nothing of value being lost. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh, countering the misconception that people popularly known as reasonable, rational or scientific should be expected to be (or are required to be) right about everything all the time doesn't seem completely unimportant to me. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, to hell with it then

I see two new examples have been added (one, apparently, aimed at the right-thinking anti-Santorum media or something). If people really want an endless, pointless list of half-thought examples, I won't stand in the way. I think that this page was an embarrassment before, and I think it will return to that state -- just like Stopped clock -- but evidently mine is a minority opinion.

Ah, well. Ain't my concern any more. Phiwum (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I never really thought this page was appropriate at all, to be honest. All people get all sorts of things wrong. And that's normal humaning. People we build up into artificial paragons can make mistakes and disappoint the fuck out of us, but the implied premise of this page, that someone can be entirely rational all the time is just unsubstantiated. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a common human folly to worship people and/or gods as infallible, no matter how enlightened, "rational" or whatever you fancy yourself.--Arisboch (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It's kind of a good balance to people who use an argument from authority...as example that Tesla was a brilliant inventor of a lot of things he was right about some of the really crazy things he said. Even the smartest messenger is fallible. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And against people, who claim, that Tesla invented some kinda super-weapons or such shit.--Arisboch (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Pet theories

How do 'pet theories and similar' fit into this? The scientist and the horseshoe ('Why do you have a horseshoe by your door - surely you don't believe in such nonsense?' to which scientist replies 'I understand it works whether you believe in it or not.') would be one such - the concept is recognizes as being 'probably illogical, but amusing' ('the thing you are looking for jumps into a parallel dimension until after you have spent two hours looking for it/you have replaced it (but occasionally gets it wrong, so some things disappear without trace and there are things #you know you never bought#.') 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(duplication caused by typing/saving faster than the internet was happy with) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It happens to me, too, from time to time, but not here. My net connection ain't the fastest, either.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

'Just explaining' - and perhaps Titivillus was involved somehow :) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A call for sources

We seriously need to source this page a lot better. And that should probably occur before we reach that inevitable point where everything that lacks a source is cleared from the page. Could save a lot of time to just dig up sources for existing statements. Anyhow, I'm all for "trivia" sections such as these, but they need to depend on sources, since they're taken wildly from all manner of subjects and people covered by RW. And for the record, I've raised the same issue for the Stopped clock article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

'Puddingstone theory' - where the author/creator takes some pieces of genuine research/factual material (the pebbles) and creates a farrago of what is often mostly plausible nonsense linking everything together (the matrix).

As with inverse stopped clockers the puddingstoners may discover links and interconnections which are true - or inspire others who are more rigorous researchers to investigate something (because it has been brought to their attention/just to disprove the proposal). 86.191.125.144 (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like a Gish Gallop expressing your run-of-the-mill crank magnetic views? I could be wrong though; please elaborate on the differences between these two and a so-called Puddingstone theory? :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Novelty value perhaps - and requires less explanations for non-RW-ians? 31.51.113.79 (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Betteridge's Law

I think that our entry for Lewis Carroll should be removed, because the evidence presented (the Smithsonian Magazine article) downplays this interpretation to an extent, our own article on Lewis Carroll refutes these notions, and the entry is phrased as a question, rather than a declaration. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

agreed, the actual text is classic "just asking questions" material and the source is not nearly certain enough to make that claim. I'm going to remove it and hopefully this discussion will prevent the knee-jerk revert. Vorarchivist (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarke's Second Law

Where is the boundary between an inverse stopped clock and Clarke's Second Law (or the 'pet theory' idea mentioned above)? Is one 'kite flying to see what happens' and the other 'support above and beyond the call of duty'? Anna Livia (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarke's Second Law can be interpreted as "keep an open mind and investigate beyond what we think are boundaries", the inverse stopped clock means the otherwise rational person didn't just keep an open mind, but accepted a position (without reasonable ground). As for pet theories, they don't necessarily involve keeping an open mind, they can be thought experiments as well, but yes, this one can be marginal. Still, a pet theory doesn't usually go full conspiracy theory, it just usually says something like "we don't know yet, but personally, this is an explanation that I find fascinating". Uh... right?
RSamys (bla) 14:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not always possible at least in the early stages to know whether 'a viewpoint' is ICS or is an outlier. (And 'pet theories can cover many areas - 'if Richard III had won Bosworth he would have been seen as a monarch of his time and rather better than Cesare Borgia and Vlad Tepes' or 'sports club x is brilliant - eventually it will win a game' etc).

We can all think of examples of 'wonderful new technology which will solve all problems/theory which will explain everything', followed by various claims that are more or less bizarre, and eventually some aspects become mainstream - not always the 'most plausible ones.'

At what point did the 'steady state universe' move from 'possibility/thought experiment' to ICS-topic? Anna Livia (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What's Donald Knuth doing on this list?

Honestly, I don't get it. Could someone please clarify?

Alternatively, just remove the entry ... 146.0.189.197 (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Bloated article here too, possibly pointless

As I said in Talk:Stopped_clock#Bloated_article (revision if section gets archived in the future), this article suffers the same problem of assuming that people that are right/seem reasonable in most subjects should be correct in all subjects lest they be subjected to "inverse stopped clock". I noticed in the archives too, that this problem keeps getting highlighted. Some examples also are being really unfair to product-of-their-time good-willed historical figures like Charles Darwin or Abraham Lincoln or Albert Einstein or some woo beliefs arguably derived from goodwill or the other way around. But IMO, unlike stopped clock, this one doesn't even have the benefit of illustrating a logical fallacy, and the coinage is complete nonsense. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge

This might not belong in this article. According to most sources, he questioned the truthfulness of some accounts of the Khmer Rouge in 1977, and as he always does, he pointed out discrepancies in the US media's coverage of the situation. He discussed the accounts of the Cambodian genocide with Jean Lacouture and Robert Silvers. Afterwards he rectified his claims. Since the late 1970s he's condemned the Khmer Rouge as perpetrators of genocide. ^{— Unsigned, by: AIsimian / talk / contribs} 01:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@AIsimian On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. CowHouse (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --AIsimian (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with AIsimian. I just made a Wiki account to say this, since I first believed this to be true but have since changed my mind. The video linked is an attempt at a "gotcha" for Chomsky but has no substance. Chomsky's corrections to Lacoteure's review were more than "pedantic"- Lacoteure was blatantly distorting the figures in Ponchaud's book, which were themselves troublesome. The CIA document that the video claims he's using to whitewash is nothing of the sort. The document claims that 50-100,000 people were directly executed, as Chomsky says, and nowhere does he ever say that the regime is not at all responsible for the deaths caused by the harsh conditions under the Khmer Rouge. Rather, he was pointing out that the figures at the time could only be made to achieve the 2 million figure through a lot of distortion. Even though the 2 million figure later turned out to be correct, it does not change the fact that Lacoteure's review was farcical.

In short, I think this section should be removed from the page, although it is also important to have a page subsection discussing the controversy around this. --Tetra (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Just want to make a point about the edit conflict

@Jaydogg1994 @Oxyaena In all honesty, this page's purpose is dubious. Note that when you get into supporting Trans-Pacific Partnership policy, which I don't think is super evil and wrong, it's somehow a "inverse stopped clock" because someone doesn't align perfectly with our set of opinions? See my comment above. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And then there's the bit about the drones. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean that's bad of course but it just seems like a case of standard centrist Democrat shenanigans. It's not shocking. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a bullshit reversion, and kowing Jaydogg's politics I have more than enough reason to tilt my head at that. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Jaydogg is anything but a moderate who hasn't exhausted benefit of doubt (after I read the user talk page). Try to cooperate with people that aren't exactly on the same wing as you. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Their edits are with an incredibly neoliberal slant, they unironically call people "Berniebros", and they have also started moaning about me on Twitter. Any political edits they make are suspect, but I guess I'll try to talk to them. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena So you're saying because i'm an moderate and not an berniebro that you're going to mess with any edit i make because you think i might secretly be alt-right, Which is a ridiculous accusation to make since i voted for the democratic nominee last election and i will vote for whoever the democratic nominee is this year (even if it's Bernie) because i'm a adult who's not gonna hand the election over to Trump like you did in 2016 when you threw a fit over you're idol losing by 4 million votes, Also the edit doesn't list any realible sources and i will revert until you can find a legitimate source (that's not jacobin, sputnik, the intercept, breitbart, common dreams). Jaydogg1994 (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because corporate owned NYT and the Post are "reliable" news sources, and you're just proving my point for me. Remember how Bernie won West Virginia but the Dems awarded it to war criminal Clinton anyways? — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Everything you said has debunked a dozen times, But you already lost the debate when you called me, A person with autism, An "idiot" on twitter, It shows you're lack of character and inability to debate you point of view properly without using foul language. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You realize I`m autistic too, right? Either way you have failed to respond to any of my points, foul language or not. I pointed out that the reason there's such a strong backlash against M4A is due to bribes, I mean, uh, lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry, which you ignored. I point out how Bernie won West Virginia, and the DNC ignored the democratic process and awarded that state to HRC anyways, you ignore that too. I point out how the mainstream media is owned by corporations, and hence are hardly "reliable sources," you ignore that too. Don't lecture me about "not being able to debate" because I use "foul language," at least I can properly address the issues at hand. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

General consensus on here does seem to lean towards opposition to free trade such as TPP and NAFTA. I'm also in agreement with Oxyaena in regards to the drone strikes. I might add that the NSA spying and subsequent backtracking on protecting whistleblowers could also use a mention. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

But honestly, I'm asking about the merits of this article as a whole? It's just a glorified trivia dump for humans acting like, well, humans and being not wholly consistent with our (or a drive-by) views. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, The article has just become a purity test of "so and so is not progressive because of this or that". Jaydogg1994 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually Oxyaena i did respond, I said that everything you said has been debunked a dozen times, Also you sound like a scientologist when you talk about "lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry". Jaydogg1994 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

And it's not just a purity test (I wouldn't argue it's a purity test for progressives even, just more of a purity test depending who's editing). Like, John Oliver's entry, this could easily be just a misguided opinion, even if it wasn't trivial, which Oliver is fully capable of correcting. His heart is still in the right spot. Bernie Sanders supporting GMO labeling? That's a view we should criticize, but it's not like a terrible thing that contrasts with the rest of his ideas that mandates a mention here. Even if the concept is valid (which I doubt), it should be like Bernie Sanders praising a fascist for fascist ideas. Hell, you guys could list me on there because at one point, I was a chemophobe who didn't like unpronounceable chemical ingredients in food and bought organic stuff.

It's also really odd that Canada is on there for... seal hunting... the hell? It's such a huge country with a ton of people with a diverse range of opinions and actions? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Jaydogg1994 Is that all you're capable of? Ad hominems? Pathetic. — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Grow up, The idea that the DNC was rigging it for Hillary was bullshit cooked up by Russian Intelligence to weaken her in the general, And M4A is polling at 30% support. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jaydogg1994 [1] From Politico of all things. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena You mean the Donna Brazile who's now working for Fox News, She also had a photo op with Sheriff David Clark, She'll say anything for a paycheck. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlequeers, I present to you the genetic fallacy in action! Encore, encore! — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Stay on topic. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 10:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)