RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

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 who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $6000Goal: $6000
Information icon.svg The 2018 moderator election has started! We are electing 6 moderators and 2 alternatives to serve in 2019. Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I have a Masters in Anthropology from NMSU as well as a degree in accounting from DACC with one of my most influential professors regarding my approach to science being the late Fred Plogg whose views were very much like James Burke's

I developed and chaired interactive 90-minute informational/instructional presentation on behalf of NMSU's museum on budget wise computerization for small and medium-sized museums:

Mountain Plains Museums Annual Meeting (10/05/1995) and
Museum Association of Arizona Annual Meeting (05/19/1996).

On a more personal level I have little tolerance for edits that use quotes that engage in any of the stuff outlined in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. The ones that annoy me the most are:

  • Ad hominem quotes (like the dreaded "no reputable scholar" or "all respected scholars agree..." quotes)
Even with fringe theories there should be better quotes addressing problems with the theory rather than attacking any person who supports the fringe theory under such a broad umbrella as Ad hominem. Given the wide range of defamation such quotes may violate Wikipedia:Libel so it is best to simply avoid them.
  • Argument from "authority"
This is a real problem as people will assume simply because someone is with an accredited institution he is an expert (even if it is unclear what his degree is in)
  • Ignoring "Occam's razor"
  • Observational selection
  • Inconsistency (the source points out there problems with the material but then uses it ignoring the very problems pointed out)
  • Non sequitur (position requires ignoring other implications that are common knowledge)
  • Excluded middle
  • Weasel words

Accuracy is important[edit]

Another thing I have little tolerance for is poor research especially when it is on the skeptical side of a debate. The fight against pseudoscience and the anti-science movement requires that what we say be as accurate as is possible. The moment we make easily disproved claims we become as bad as what we rail against--in fighting the dragon with such methods we become the dragon.

I wish it was notable[edit]

I wish Doane R. Hoag's "The Random time machine" article series was notable but even though it lasted from 1975 to somewhere in the 1980s there is next to nothing about it. So far all I have found is copyright notices on some of the articles and a few online newspapers archives:

The Lady was a Pirate, love on the high seas (July 6, 1975) and three others in the Catalog of Copyright Entries. Third Series: 1975