Denialism

Rationality served up hot and fresh

—

by

MarkH
in

i-6de973c7aac254ddc623f112bcbac6e6-RW_Logo_1_Optimized.png
One of my favorite pet websites is RationalWiki, which is slowly transforming into it’s 3.0 iteration. It originated as a parody/rebuttal site to the execrable Conservapedia (and no, Conservapedia is not a parody, just an example of Poe’s Law at work). Eventually, it expanded to developing articles that examined irrationality in general, such as fundamentalism, evolution denialism, etc.

In its latest phase, it has implemented an interactive “What is Going On” (WIGO) feature. Initially this simply tracked inanity at Conservapedia. Now it will also track the best and worst of the blogosphere, the news, and anything else that seems interesting. It will allow readers to evaluate content real-time and see how idiocy is debunked. And, being a wiki, anyone can join in on the back-end helping to build content.

It’s fun. Check it out.

Comments

  1. Ames

    My “RW 3.0” phrase is catching on! MWAHAHA

    Reply
  2. tmtoulouse

    Memes are fun to start, eh Ames? 🙂

    I would like to draw peoples attention to our “Article of the Weak” as well, over time we plan to create a searchable index of the fringe of the web. People’s votes will be what allows us to classify the sites and create the searchable index. The more participation we get the better our data:

    http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki:Article_of_the_Weak

    Reply
  3. Will

    Just wondering, what’s your opinion on diet and nutrition, have you read Gary Taubes’s book Good Calories, Bad Calories, and what do you think of the arguments he presents in the book?

    I can’t pretend to have read all the studies and literature linking fat and heart disease, but he provides many compelling arguments that the link between fat and heart disease is tenuous at best, and that there’s a far stronger link between low-fat, high refined carb diets and obesity/diabetes/metabolic syndrome/cancers.

    As far as all the recent studies I’ve seen come out on fat, carbs, dieting, etc, none have shown increased risk of heart disease, or increased weight gain on high-fat low-carb diets, yet mainstream medicine still regards fat to be correlated to heart disease…

    I ask, because rational wiki summarily dismisses low carb diets as a fad diet. (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Low-carb_diet) I know a wiki can be freely edited by members etc etc, but generally citations, references are included… My question is: based on what evidence? What studies are backing this up?

    Since you’re a doctor, I’m curious as to what you’ve been taught about diet/nutrition.

    Reply
  4. wazza

    I’ll have to spend more time there once my mid-semester break comes up…

    Reply
  5. bi — IJI

    > but he provides many compelling arguments that the link between fat and heart disease is tenuous at best, and that there’s a far stronger link between low-fat, high refined carb diets and obesity/diabetes/metabolic syndrome/cancers.

    Given that you find the arguments “compelling”, then it stands to reason that you know of studies which specifically find “a far stronger link between low-fat, high refined carb diets and obesity/diabetes/metabolic syndrome/cancers”. What are these studies, and where can we find them?

    You can’t simply make a claim and then turn around to ask others to disprove it. When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you.

    Reply
  6. bi — IJI

    By the way, I must remind myself to check out the Article of the Weak some time. 🙂

    Reply
  7. Art

    Excellent source. Thanks for the heads-up.

    Reply
  8. Will

    I’m not making the claim–I’m asking if others have read the book. In the book, the author makes the claim and he includes an appendix of many studies in the book. I found his arguments very convincing, and was wondering if others who have read it can point to holes in his logic.

    How about the popular claim that high saturated fat diets (not including hydrogenated) cause heart disease? There’s no proof of that either. (well, there’s some studies saying yes, some saying no).

    Reply
  9. John H.

    Now I’m concerned about the goat problem. Damn you!

    Reply
  10. Stu

    rationalwiki is comprised of assholes and nothing else. No debates go on there, it’s all one-sided. Their side, period. They’ll eventually go down the tubes or at best, they’ll be the only ones talking amongst themselves and enjoying each others loneliness.

    Reply
  11. LanceR, JSG

    Ooh. Sounds like someone got his feelings hurt. Do tell, Stu. Did they smack your fingers?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *