3 ms·
RationalWiki is as rational as skeptics wiki is skeptical: Not at all. I don't know what part of the human conditions lead to these things, but there is an impo
by s9w 6y ago
RationalWiki is as rational as skeptics wiki is skeptical: Not at all. I don't know what part of the human conditions lead to these things, but there is an important constant of life:
Whenever someone or something labels itself with a positive adjective, it never lives up to it and often is exactly the opposite.
- implements 6y agoIts position on one (admittedly contentious) subject was so far from rational and balanced that it drained the historic goodwill toward it I otherwise had.
- throwaway5938 6y agoAnd what subject would that be?
- implements 6y agoOne which is a philosophical issue, imo, but presented on RW as both scientific and fully settled such that dissenters are cast as both wrong-headed and morally bad. That’s just not “rational” - and I’m surprised the site on that subject has abandoned a neutral point of view in favour of something practically Conservapedia-esque. HNs asks that we avoid flamebait, so I’m not going to be specific - I just wanted to make the sincere point that RW does take stances that, to me, go against what I thought it’s spirit was.
- throwawawawaay 6y agoI think that beating around the bush without being explicit about what you believe (which makes your position impossible to refute or even talk about in any meaningful way) makes for sterile discussion and is hardly better than flamebait. In line with the principle of charity you should state your position without assuming your detractors will be unable to keep their cool.