Talk:Genius bias

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Genius bias as edited by Philip J. Rayment (Talk | contribs) at 03:52, February 9, 2008. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

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)
First, it wasn't me that "replaced" anything, or included the phrase that is being questioned. Second, I don't know what the qualifications of the two gentlemen are, so I'm not defending the particular example, but the principle. Another thing that I've noticed is the tendency by anticreationists to use any criteria they can that marginalises creationists (or ID people, as in this case). So in this case, you are ignoring qualifications and citing the number of books (or other publications?) But although Dawkins is quite prolific in his writing, many of his books are polemics against Christianity, creationism, or etc., rather than being scientific publications. I've seen creationists criticised for publishing books rather than in peer-reviewed journals, yet here you are citing Dawkins' books as evidence of his standing!
Everyone has biases; as someone once said, it's not a matter of being biased, but which is the best biased to be biased with! It's not bias per se that we object to, but bias masquerading as objective science (e.g. evolution) or as neutrality (e.g. Wikipedia).
And you can fight fire with flamethrowers. The flamethrowers can be used to create firebreaks!
Philip J. Rayment 22:52, 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)