![]() | ||
2011-02-16 11:44:19 | Archibald sets a new record of myths? | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 69.230.107.233 |
Absolutely stunning presentation by David Archibald reposted by WTFUWT. I counted 21 myths in this one, and at the end, he concludes that Australia must start using liquified coal as transportation fuel (which would be an environmental nightmare). And of course the brainwashed drones in the comments absolutely fawned over the steaming pile of crap Archibald presented to them. Just makes you shake your head in bewilderment. | |
2011-02-16 13:30:50 | Kudos for adding this to the database | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 144.131.205.143 |
This kind of Gish Gallop is why our skeptic resource would be so useful. Without lifting a finger other than a few clicks with the Firefox Add-on, we've already created a near comprehensive rebuttal of this article: http://www.skepticalscience.com/article.php?a=5137
| |
2011-02-16 13:33:24 | BTW, I've assigned this article to Archibald | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 144.131.205.143 |
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_David_Archibald.htm The skeptic resource is still buggy and not fit for public consumption but in the meantime, when the skeptic big guns spew forth, we should add them to the database so that the skeptic resource can hit the ground running when it's ready for launch. | |
2011-02-16 14:47:41 | Few clicks | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 69.230.107.233 |
More than a few clicks on this one. My finger was starting to cramp up there were so many myths! :-) | |
2011-02-16 14:55:05 | I've been thinking - how could we counter these kinds of articles | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 144.131.205.143 |
Should we have a "Skeptic of the Week" award or something like that - some kind of weekly blog post where we highlight the article cramming the most skeptic arguments in a single article? Or rehashes old material? Or have an automated page that just lists these kinds of articles in a top ten kind of list. List them by skeptic? We have same amazing data here that we need to make more accessible to people - just wondering if there's a way to promote/launch/structure it to give it a bit of x-factor, make it interesting. The "Monckton Meander" Award? :-) | |
2011-02-16 15:00:36 | Monthly | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 69.230.107.233 |
Maybe of the month rather than week. That's a pretty good idea for highlighting the database. Especially once we get all the skeptic pages going. | |
2011-02-16 15:09:10 | The other thing I like about our collection of skeptics | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 144.131.205.143 |
Showing all their photos in the one place - without saying a word, shows how the fraternity of skeptics are a bunch of old, white haired men:
| |
2011-02-16 19:46:13 | ||
Riccardo riccardoreitano@tiscali... 192.84.150.209 |
I like the idea of the skeptic of the month. We should also create a page with the list and the pictures. | |
2011-02-17 04:25:40 | wall of shame | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 38.223.231.252 |
Sort of like a Wall of Shame, eh Riccardo? | |
2011-02-17 07:33:14 | ||
Riccardo riccardoreitano@tiscali... 93.147.82.141 |
The Wall of Scientific Shame But then we should rise a lot of money to pay for a good lawyer for John :) | |
2011-02-17 07:50:23 | Comment | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.163.105 |
Personally I don't like this idea. I don't want to see them do the same to me or to see John's picture or Dana's or mine on their own "wall of shame". | |
2011-02-17 11:25:58 | ||
nealjking nealjking@gmail... 84.151.51.183 |
Robert, - There is a difference: These are all very public people, who give talks and presentations. I don't think any of them would have a legitimate beef about being over-exposed. - As long as we don't label it a "wall of shame," I don't think they'll even mind. | |
2011-02-17 11:52:49 | ||
Alex C coultera@umich... 67.149.101.148 |
There may not be a problem with them specifically redoing the deed, but perhaps with other less-known contrarians who might seek retribution for such a tactic? I like the idea of a skeptic of the month, but a wall of shame might be pushing it. Perhaps a wall of shame for the arguments put forth by them, though that's being redundant I suppose.
And in defense of the skeptics, they're not a group of old white haired men. Some are losing their hair. | |
2011-02-17 12:16:35 | Losing hair | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 144.131.205.143 |
I shouldn't talk, I am thinning on top. It would have to be carefully done to avoid ad hominem but instead focus on the science. The point of Monckton Myths was not to attack Monckton but his arguments. This would be the same - a scientific resource but the science grouped around individuals. | |
2011-02-17 14:01:42 | shame | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 69.230.107.233 |
I wasn't suggesting that we call it a Wall of Shame, just that it would be like a Wall of Shame. Calling it such would be too ad hom. | |
2011-02-17 14:04:51 | ||
Alex C coultera@umich... 67.149.101.148 |
Perhaps a directory, with pictures and names, to rebuttals to their arguments? Instead of a listing of the arguments, a listing of the skeptics. | |
2011-02-17 14:10:56 | Directory of skeptics | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 144.131.205.143 |
That's what I have here - a directory of skeptics: http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptics.php?f=embargoed But it's not live yet. Still building the database of skeptics plus their arguments. I also welcome everyone to add articles to each skeptic's page whenever you encounter an article written by a skeptic - so we can keep building this resource in a crowd sourcing kind of way (many hands...). Here are instructions on how to add articles to a skeptic: |