Difference between revisions of "Talk:Genius bias"
Feebasfactor (talk | contribs) (shocking, I know) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
You're just replacing their genius bias with your own. Richard Dawkins has been a leader in the field of biology for over 30 years, since ''The Selfish Gene'' was published I can't find more than a couple publications by Jonathan Wells. You're trying to replace someone with decades of respected scholarship who happens to believe differently from you with someone with practically no academic notoriety who happens to agree with you. I don't know why you think that fighting bias with blatant bias is going to solve anything. I think liberal bias is bad enough, but you can't fight fire with flamethrowers. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 13:42, 8 February 2008 (EST) | You're just replacing their genius bias with your own. Richard Dawkins has been a leader in the field of biology for over 30 years, since ''The Selfish Gene'' was published I can't find more than a couple publications by Jonathan Wells. You're trying to replace someone with decades of respected scholarship who happens to believe differently from you with someone with practically no academic notoriety who happens to agree with you. I don't know why you think that fighting bias with blatant bias is going to solve anything. I think liberal bias is bad enough, but you can't fight fire with flamethrowers. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 13:42, 8 February 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :But didn't you know? [[Richard Dawkins]] is [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford| not even a real professor!]] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:39, 8 February 2008 (EST) | ||
== New bias? == | == New bias? == | ||
Revision as of 20:39, February 8, 2008
I'm confused by "more qualified." What exactly does this mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Americanscientist (talk)
- "More qualified" is a clear term. Do you have access to a dictionary? A scientist with 2 PhD's like Richard Sternberg is "more qualified" than one without any PhD's, like most evolution promoters.--Aschlafly 11:25, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- And a scientist with one PhD relevant to the subject is "more qualified" than one with two unrelated ones. Barikada 16:44, 25 January 2008 (EST)
- True, but what does that have to do with this discussion? Philip J. Rayment 04:55, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- And a scientist with one PhD relevant to the subject is "more qualified" than one with two unrelated ones. Barikada 16:44, 25 January 2008 (EST)
You're just replacing their genius bias with your own. Richard Dawkins has been a leader in the field of biology for over 30 years, since The Selfish Gene was published I can't find more than a couple publications by Jonathan Wells. You're trying to replace someone with decades of respected scholarship who happens to believe differently from you with someone with practically no academic notoriety who happens to agree with you. I don't know why you think that fighting bias with blatant bias is going to solve anything. I think liberal bias is bad enough, but you can't fight fire with flamethrowers. RWest 13:42, 8 February 2008 (EST)
- But didn't you know? Richard Dawkins is not even a real professor! Feebasfactor 15:39, 8 February 2008 (EST)
New bias?
Mr. Schlafly, Is this a term that you coined? Never heard of it before and google search does not come out with any thing significant. Can we also please coin new terms and introduce them via the encyclopedia? --JBuscombe 12:49, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- See Conservapedia terms --Crocoite 16:26, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- It's still a recently coined phrase coined by someone at Conservapedia. RWest 13:42, 8 February 2008 (EST)