User talk:Pengo

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to RW[edit]

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Pengo!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

--Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 23:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What's with the repeated re-adding of "research paper"?[edit]

@Pengo Works on junk sciences like the ones that Irwin promotes are not research papers. Why do you keep trying to add in "research papers"? Just curious... --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 4:04 pm, Today (UTC−8)

@CircularReasoning Because they have published research papers. I don't understand. There's a bunch listed on their site.[1] I originally added quotes around "research paper" but removed the scare quotes as it was pointed out on the talk page that there's some in respected journals. You can reasonably criticize the woo in papers all you like, but it's factually accurate that they have published them. Klee Irwin has his name on most of them. I don't understand why you don't think they have published them? They don't stop being research papers just because he's an author. Pengo (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, no, I didn't mean that I thought that they were never published; I was just surprised that you referred to the published writings and claims as "research paper"... from what I know, something that purports to be scientific but in reality is far from being so being published doesn't make it a "research paper"; the way I've come to understand what "research" actually means is making honest observations of proven, verifiable experiments conducted using the scientific method. Anyway, I might just be being a bit pedantic and overzealous. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 07:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
They're research papers in so much as they're written in the format of research papers and are published in journals. If you want to dispute their hypotheses, methodology or point out any lack of falsifiable claims, I think those details would be make a much better article than one which removes any mention of the papers for fear of somehow legitimizing the organization by their very mention. The "Woo pushing" section is heavy on criticism but very light on specifics, so I'm sure it would be a welcome addition. Pengo (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

Cheers. Appreciate it. Pengo (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)