Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Stop x nuvola.svg This user is banned indefinitely from editing RationalWiki.

Please review the Chicken coop before commenting or unblocking.

Wikipedia profile.

I'm ambivalent towards RationalWiki. On the one hand, it is a useful reference on many pseudosciences like astrology. On the other hand, RationalWiki is clearly biased with regards to the sacred cows of the egalitarian ideology. The most biased coverage is on group differences, particularly genetic ones (sex, race, income etc.). Since I am apparently prominent enough to be featured here (Emil O. W. Kirkegaard), it makes sense for me to points out errors in my own article. Given that I'm a living person, BLP applies (presumably) and so they should demand more rigor about claims of pseudoscientist this, neonazi that. As stated on my summary of views page:

I do not consider myself a fan of any major political ideology, like conservatism, socialism, libertarianism, nationalism, neo-reactionism or communism. Political ideologies have their origin in pre-scientific times, so it would be an extraordinary coincidence if any of them happened to get things just right. Identifying with a particular ideology also has the tendency to encourage in-group confirmation bias/identity politics, which I want to avoid.

The reason I target left-wing sacred cows instead of conservative or libertarian ones (e.g. climate science denialism) is simply that academics (and journalists) are mostly left-wing, so left-wing biases are more prominently reflected in the scientific literature and in the media. As such, the biggest impact can be made by targeting their sacred cows.

Personally speaking, it is interesting that I should end up on this website given my long history of arguing against pseudoscience. I spent several years debating creationists online (and religious people in general), and now a days occasionally debate climate science deniers. I have read widely on the topic of various pseudosciences.