Talk:Richard C. Hoagland

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon pseudoastronomy.svg

This Pseudoastronomy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Does he technically count as an astronomer, despite his beliefs? I'm wondering if I should add the cat. ThunderkatzHo! 15:20, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Very good question. I suspect the answer is "yes". The fact that he also is a moonbat doesn't make him not an astronomer. For instance, Dr. Behe is a biologist (molecular bio. I think), although he's also a tool. humanUser talk:Human 17:16, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Mockery[edit]

I skimmed some of the more interesting pages of his blathering website, and noticed that there are a couple methodologies of his we need to directly address. At least it would be interesting... Firstly, his "numerical coincidences as evidence" aka "Look! I can play with numbers!", (the best of this: here, scroll down a little bit), the "secret societies" bit, aka "Evil societies, instead of spending their vast resources on directly steering world events, chose to blow everything on tweaking our calender, so funny things happen at funny times! Yay!" (One would hope they are so incompetent.) The best example of this: here (scroll down a bit). And lastly "photographic evidence", aka "Look! FUZZY pictures" (best example here, scroll down a bit). --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Uhhh[edit]

This is currently in the article " (The article was not a "[scientific] paper", as the previous revision of this RationalWiki article called it for three years since its creation by an anonymous user in 2007,[8] but rather an popular-science article for the popular-astronomy magazine Star and Sky.)"

  1. That BoN was me (which should have been fairly easy to tell by just looking at its talk page).
  2. Uhh... sorry?
  3. Why do we need to point out my mistake (or any editor's mistake for that matter) in the article?

Yeah, pie in my face and all that (though I never called it or even implied that it was scientific, and probably just pulled the word "paper" off Hoagland's website or something), but this seems harsh and unnecessary. ThunderkatzHo! 23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)