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. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Pseudoskepticism/Archive1
Reed gud[edit]
I reed gud but this articul dun mek no since. 02:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah agrees. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I third that motion.The Goonie 1 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Shall I take it out back and shoot it? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, it just needs some love and care. If you don't want to fix, just pop it on the community chalkboard or the to-do list or something. - π 03:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Shall I take it out back and shoot it? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I third that motion.The Goonie 1 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not that i don't want to fix it--it's that I have no fuckin' idea what the hell it's supposed to be about. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Trent has been big on this recently, why not ask him? - π 03:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think, from what it appears I can understand, that it is supposed to be about people who dismiss skeptics as "pseudoskeptics" just because the skeptics won't "open their mind" to woo.The Goonie 1 (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Pseudoskepticism shouldn't have a letitamete use[edit]
It should follow the tone that the word "Pseudoscience" leads by making an easy lable to crackpot scientists, in this case crackpot head-in-sand. An ideal origin for the idea might be with Socratest attesting that he has to be a "stingfly" which propels the lazy ass into thinking.
"It is, however, sometimes used in its apparent meaning"[edit]
This is where I lose this thing--WHAT apparent meaning, as opposed to what is discussed in the 1st pgph? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly what I am having trouble wrapping my head around. How/when is it used in "its apparent meaning" and could examples be provided as to when it is used correctly, as opposed to when it's abused?The Goonie 1 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a better definition?[edit]
"Pseudoskepticism is a loaded term used by promoters of woo to in order to dismiss skeptical criticism as unfounded" or something like that, and work our way from there, one step at a time?The Goonie 1 (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I like your sentence. ħuman
07:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Glad to be of help.The Goonie 1 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- While looking for more on this term I came across the WP talk page. Looks like a tricky one to define.--BobNot Jim 17:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Glad to be of help.The Goonie 1 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Skeptical/sceptical.[edit]
Goonie--it's not a typo. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see. It appears we have yet another American vs. British English dialectical conflict. My mistake, but perhaps we should find a way to spell it and use that way consistantly throughout the article (which way, I don't care.)The Goonie 1 (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was using English without thinking - but I'm happy to go with US.--BobNot Jim 17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. In my defence, using different dialects in the same article is defenseless because it just doesn't look right (as my example shows). I was only changing it in the interests of whitewashing.The Goonie 1 (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was using English without thinking - but I'm happy to go with US.--BobNot Jim 17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Serious?[edit]
Are you guys serious on this [1] section, because if you are I could use mabye at WS. Because it's an unfunny caricature, or actually it's a caricature that would only be funny to the other side, and I'm not sure how serious you guys are about it. Tarantallegra (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Dunno who wrote it but it reads like sense to me. I am eating
& honeychat 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent. Tarantallegra (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Quotes[edit]
You should put in some quotes to jazz this up. You've got to have some good ones. Tarantallegra (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Rational wiki = Pseudoscience - some dumb BON[edit]
The following was added by a BON who deleted the rest of the talk page:
I love how the term pseudo distorisonan skeptical, his article is a complete string of opinions. Where is the relationship with Marcello Truzzi? Truzzi Was a charlatan? No, but you say Woo developers use it. Whether their articles and in itself is of lower quality than those of Wikipedia, this article get a ten on all matters relating to lies and justification. Best of all is its pseudo debate, to see who has the right, in a few words say nothing, are simply "arguments" in circles. Are complete pseudo scientists.— Unsigned, by: 189.191.39.84 / talk / contribs
- WTF? Even made into a proper post, this doesn't make any sense at all. The Noisy Orchestra Oi! Oi! Oi! 21:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)