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
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.