Rational Wiki deletes essay criticizing Rational Wiki

They engage in dishonesty on a number of counts:

1. They dishonestly misuse and game the Wikipedia rules to make sure their POV remains, while banning and harrassing dissenting opinions in an organized fashion.
2. They make use of Skeptical written resources and ignore other source material that contradict their citations. They ignore any evidence that would contradict a Skeptical source, and pretend the Skeptical source is 100% biblically correct.
3. They dishonestly present a limited contextual biased view of the biographies they target on Wikipedia of those they wish to smear. For example, if you have a well-known medium such as Mrs. Piper, they will present one single case of her mediumship in the bio, and ignore any of the hundreds of other cases that remain veridical. They imply the one single case is evidential of Mrs. Piper being a fraud.
4. They make sure any criticism of Skeptic's biographies on Wikipedia are kept clean, and game and misuse the Wikipedia rules to make sure no fair criticism is visible of Skeptic Society members..
5. They have managed to get Wikipedia itself to label psi research as a "pseudo-science" when by all known definitions of science, parapsychology has had real scientists engage in real scientific experiments using empirical methods. They are also able to label scientists engaged in psi research as "pseudo-scientists". Both are misleading, dishonest terms - and are used frequently by Skeptics to abuse and game the Wikipedia rules further.
6. They are often dishonest in their claims to knowledge of psi & nde research. Often when pressed, they know very little about the actual scientific research that has been conducted now over 100+ years. Polemics you usually receive from Skeptics come from resources they use heavily from Skeptical websites. Most Skeptics remain ignorant of the details of the actual scientific research they vigorously attack. This too is dishonest, as they present themselves as being knowledgeable. Real Skepticism is not the same as Denial.
7. They pretend they speak for Science, when the Skeptic's Society is not even a scientific organization. Whereas organizations such as the Society for Psychical Research is a scientific organization and has conducted empirical studies now for over 100+ years. The Skeptic's Society as a rule discourages its members from performing scientific work in psi. This too presents a dishonest equivalency between real scientists and propagandists.
8. They are dishonest when they engage with people they call "proponents". The conversation is not based on a "good faith" dialogue, but instead, usually follows a well-established Skeptic's talking points agenda. Where proponents will be hammered with repeated attack lines, and are repeatedly asked to "Provide Evidence" - while at the same time, if any research is provided, the Skeptic will then use abrasive Skeptic talking points to dismiss whatever the proponent presents. Note that this kind of dialogue does not require the Skeptic to actually look at the empirical research themselves (and few of them do) - they simply use well-worn Skeptic talking points to deny the empirical study provided. The Skeptic almost never looks at the case study for themselves in greater detail.
9. When looking at the evidentiary data, the Skeptic will ignore veridical data and only look at data that is flawed and has the semblance of buttressing their denial of the research. A good example, recent studies demonstrating rats have an eeg burst just before death, was
latched on by many Skeptics as proof that NDEs are brain based. But veridical observations by NDErs who claim they are looking down upon themselves during an NDE and provide specific, unfakeable details of say resuscitation efforts is routinely ignored by Skeptics. This is intellectually dishonest.

I sort of went here from details of Wikipedia Skeptics to Skeptics in general. But my general thrust here is to demonstrate just how intellectually dishonest these new brand of Skeptics are. And that it is very difficult to engage in any kind of rational give and take with those who are deliberately engaged in dishonest conduct. It's like attempting to win a game of dice with someone who has decided they will only play the game with their dice loaded.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
.GS is opaque? They list their members. They list the articles they want to improve. What's opaque?

Hmmm, well, having a "private" forum for one. Say, what exactly is discussed in these private forums? It couldn't be colluding could it? Certainly not since I that would be against Wikipedia rules.

BTW, GSoW have over a hundred editors on Wikipedia. Has anyone bothered to go through each member name listed and made sure there isn't any colluding occurring on these controversial pages?

Even those in the skeptical community have issues with how GSoW conduct themselves.

The fact is, a select group of people are seen repeatedly camping on certain controversial articles and basically "gaming the system" to protect their own edits and keeping others from being able to add to or change the article. Whether GSoW had anything to do with that or not is not known. But as long as they operate anonymously, and behind closed doors, there is no way to know. Again, if all we have to go on is the ruler supreme of GSoW's word that they didn't have anything to do with it, then the case is hardly closed. Gee, maybe they should start using that in the judicial system:

Judge: "Mr. Smith, you have been charged with the murder of your wife"

Mr. Smith: "I didn't do it your honor."

Judge: "Very well then, the charges will be dropped. Court is adjourned."

Sounds totally legit.

A word here on skepticism- skepticism is not a belief system. It is not purely for those who buy into one ideology over another. It is not strictly for atheists, scientists, so called "rational thinkers" or anyone else who thinks that calling themselves a skeptic means they now belong to an exclusive club made up of only the most intelligent of our species. A skeptic is someone who never closes their mind to any possibility. A skeptic questions everything, not just that which goes against their beliefs. In all actuality, it's pretty hard to be a true skeptic and hold any real beliefs about anything. Any who claims otherwise isn't a true skeptic.

I'm honestly not sure that humans are really even capable of true skepticism.
 
They list their members.

BTW, this doesn't rule out sock-puppetry. Even though that is against Wikipedia rules. Clearly GSoW always play by the rules, seeing as their presence as a group is against Wikipedia rules to begin with.
 
GS is opaque? They list their members. They list the articles they want to improve. What's opaque?



What about it?



Ha ha? I guess everyone just a part of some conspiracy, and nobody really just goes an edits Wikipedia for the hell of it.

Disclosure is real names. A list of fake names is not really a list of members. Members are real people. A screen name isn't a real identifier. It tells you no useful information about that person and there is nothing to stop that person from having multiple accounts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
The best way to change the article would be to present evidence that the page doesn't already debunk.

Fuzzy - that's not a truthful statement. If you believe it's true, it's a little delusional, I can assure you. You're talking about my life, my intentions, my work, my thoughts, my private views, my beliefs. That's what the article is either stating or inferring. It's literally not possible for you to 'debunk' anything I have said, because it is consistent with all of my communication, going back 12 years if need be.

You don't know enough about me to debunk. I think you're confusing 'debunking', which is a method of falsification, based on evidence and most importantly consistency under critical questioning. No one's done that. They've stated their opinion, and no one has been able to consistently back up their version of the facts under any sort of critical questioning. It's sloppy reasoning for you or anyone to say anything has been debunked.
 
@Laird:

You wanted a response? Enjoy. I must've forgotten your edit, among the dozen ones Rome proposed. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Rome_Viharo#Response)

Thanks, FCP. The latest version of the page is definitely better than it was. Sadly, that's about all the positive comment I can make. There is still a lot of petty criticism in the page, as if it is desperately seeking for a reason to justify its existence, whereas in fact its existence at all, too, is petty. As I have written both in this thread and on my RW talkpage, I have chosen not to participate further, so I will not be responding in turn on the talk page of Rome's article. There is much that I could say if I were to do so though. For example, one of the references the page currently relies on as proof that the talk was publicised as a serious proposal is a blog apparently (unless I misunderstand) not under Rome's or TED's control. For another example, you criticise me for removing a reference to ayahuasca when no such reference appears to have existed: it has been added in the latest revision. And on and on. But enough now.
 
They engage in dishonesty on a number of counts:

1. They dishonestly misuse and game the Wikipedia rules to make sure their POV remains, while banning and harrassing dissenting opinions in an organized fashion.
2. They make use of Skeptical written resources and ignore other source material that contradict their citations. They ignore any evidence that would contradict a Skeptical source, and pretend the Skeptical source is 100% biblically correct.
3. They dishonestly present a limited contextual biased view of the biographies they target on Wikipedia of those they wish to smear. For example, if you have a well-known medium such as Mrs. Piper, they will present one single case of her mediumship in the bio, and ignore any of the hundreds of other cases that remain veridical. They imply the one single case is evidential of Mrs. Piper being a fraud.
4. They make sure any criticism of Skeptic's biographies on Wikipedia are kept clean, and game and misuse the Wikipedia rules to make sure no fair criticism is visible of Skeptic Society members..
5. They have managed to get Wikipedia itself to label psi research as a "pseudo-science" when by all known definitions of science, parapsychology has had real scientists engage in real scientific experiments using empirical methods. They are also able to label scientists engaged in psi research as "pseudo-scientists". Both are misleading, dishonest terms - and are used frequently by Skeptics to abuse and game the Wikipedia rules further.
6. They are often dishonest in their claims to knowledge of psi & nde research. Often when pressed, they know very little about the actual scientific research that has been conducted now over 100+ years. Polemics you usually receive from Skeptics come from resources they use heavily from Skeptical websites. Most Skeptics remain ignorant of the details of the actual scientific research they vigorously attack. This too is dishonest, as they present themselves as being knowledgeable. Real Skepticism is not the same as Denial.
7. They pretend they speak for Science, when the Skeptic's Society is not even a scientific organization. Whereas organizations such as the Society for Psychical Research is a scientific organization and has conducted empirical studies now for over 100+ years. The Skeptic's Society as a rule discourages its members from performing scientific work in psi. This too presents a dishonest equivalency between real scientists and propagandists.
8. They are dishonest when they engage with people they call "proponents". The conversation is not based on a "good faith" dialogue, but instead, usually follows a well-established Skeptic's talking points agenda. Where proponents will be hammered with repeated attack lines, and are repeatedly asked to "Provide Evidence" - while at the same time, if any research is provided, the Skeptic will then use abrasive Skeptic talking points to dismiss whatever the proponent presents. Note that this kind of dialogue does not require the Skeptic to actually look at the empirical research themselves (and few of them do) - they simply use well-worn Skeptic talking points to deny the empirical study provided. The Skeptic almost never looks at the case study for themselves in greater detail.
9. When looking at the evidentiary data, the Skeptic will ignore veridical data and only look at data that is flawed and has the semblance of buttressing their denial of the research. A good example, recent studies demonstrating rats have an eeg burst just before death, was
latched on by many Skeptics as proof that NDEs are brain based. But veridical observations by NDErs who claim they are looking down upon themselves during an NDE and provide specific, unfakeable details of say resuscitation efforts is routinely ignored by Skeptics. This is intellectually dishonest.

I sort of went here from details of Wikipedia Skeptics to Skeptics in general. But my general thrust here is to demonstrate just how intellectually dishonest these new brand of Skeptics are. And that it is very difficult to engage in any kind of rational give and take with those who are deliberately engaged in dishonest conduct. It's like attempting to win a game of dice with someone who has decided they will only play the game with their dice loaded.

My Best,
Bertha

Hmmm, well, having a "private" forum for one. Say, what exactly is discussed in these private forums? It couldn't be colluding could it? Certainly not since I that would be against Wikipedia rules.

BTW, GSoW have over a hundred editors on Wikipedia. Has anyone bothered to go through each member name listed and made sure there isn't any colluding occurring on these controversial pages?

Even those in the skeptical community have issues with how GSoW conduct themselves.

The fact is, a select group of people are seen repeatedly camping on certain controversial articles and basically "gaming the system" to protect their own edits and keeping others from being able to add to or change the article. Whether GSoW had anything to do with that or not is not known. But as long as they operate anonymously, and behind closed doors, there is no way to know. Again, if all we have to go on is the ruler supreme of GSoW's word that they didn't have anything to do with it, then the case is hardly closed. Gee, maybe they should start using that in the judicial system:

Judge: "Mr. Smith, you have been charged with the murder of your wife"

Mr. Smith: "I didn't do it your honor."

Judge: "Very well then, the charges will be dropped. Court is adjourned."

Sounds totally legit.

A word here on skepticism- skepticism is not a belief system. It is not purely for those who buy into one ideology over another. It is not strictly for atheists, scientists, so called "rational thinkers" or anyone else who thinks that calling themselves a skeptic means they now belong to an exclusive club made up of only the most intelligent of our species. A skeptic is someone who never closes their mind to any possibility. A skeptic questions everything, not just that which goes against their beliefs. In all actuality, it's pretty hard to be a true skeptic and hold any real beliefs about anything. Any who claims otherwise isn't a true skeptic.

I'm honestly not sure that humans are really even capable of true skepticism.

Disclosure is real names. A list of fake names is not really a list of members. Members are real people. A screen name isn't a real identifier. It tells you no useful information about that person and there is nothing to stop that person from having multiple accounts.
Fuzzy - that's not a truthful statement. If you believe it's true, it's a little delusional, I can assure you. You're talking about my life, my intentions, my work, my thoughts, my private views, my beliefs. That's what the article is either stating or inferring. It's literally not possible for you to 'debunk' anything I have said, because it is consistent with all of my communication, going back 12 years if need be.

You don't know enough about me to debunk. I think you're confusing 'debunking', which is a method of falsification, based on evidence and most importantly consistency under critical questioning. No one's done that. They've stated their opinion, and no one has been able to consistently back up their version of the facts under any sort of critical questioning. It's sloppy reasoning for you or anyone to say anything has been debunked.

"Every major religion, not just the Old Testament, has some version of the commandment against bearing false witness against thy neighbor. When a man's character is slandered, not just he suffers, but his wife, his children, his parents, often his friends. Those who make a career out of spreading unproven accusations against other humans can only be forgiven if they really are so ignorant and stupid that they don't know the difference between an assertion and an evidential demonstration. I think it's awfully late to accept that kind of ignorance as an excuse. I think we have a duty to try to know, and to act rationally, responsibly, and decently."

Robert Anton Wilson, "Illuminati Papers"
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
> complains my posts are too long

Nah, dude, relax, don't stress it. It wasn't a complaint about the length of your post, it was a comment on the number of issues not just with your post but remaining in the page itself, and an implied sigh at the futility of (my) struggling in the face of a mob of hostile opposition to resolve them.
 
Wiki Noise, Digital Wildfires, and Social Propaganda.
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/...oise-digital-wildfires-and-social-propaganda/

These guys are following me all over Reddit now.

http://www.reddit.com/r/rationalwiki/comments/35r9vt/rome_viharo/

http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/35taj8/wikipedia_we_have_a_problem_by_rome_viharo_troll/

And they keep claiming me reporting on harassment from members of the skeptic community is a conspiracy theory. lol.

You committed a thoughtcrime. There are consequences.

They have our best interests in mind. Let Asperger's Brother lead you to Rational bliss.
 
Wiki Noise, Digital Wildfires, and Social Propaganda.
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/...oise-digital-wildfires-and-social-propaganda/

These guys are following me all over Reddit now.

http://www.reddit.com/r/rationalwiki/comments/35r9vt/rome_viharo/

http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/35taj8/wikipedia_we_have_a_problem_by_rome_viharo_troll/

And they keep claiming me reporting on harassment from members of the skeptic community is a conspiracy theory. lol.

Wow, just....wow.

Hard for them to claim a conspiracy theory when they basically are making your point for you.

Even if it WAS a wacko made up conspiracy theory on your part, they would be unwittingly only adding fuel to your fire, hence literally making the "wacko conspiracy theory" a bonafide conspiracy.

They've really painted themselves into a corner with this.
 
They engage in dishonesty on a number of counts:

1. They dishonestly misuse and game the Wikipedia rules to make sure their POV remains, while banning and harrassing dissenting opinions in an organized fashion.
2. They make use of Skeptical written resources and ignore other source material that contradict their citations. They ignore any evidence that would contradict a Skeptical source, and pretend the Skeptical source is 100% biblically correct.
3. They dishonestly present a limited contextual biased view of the biographies they target on Wikipedia of those they wish to smear. For example, if you have a well-known medium such as Mrs. Piper, they will present one single case of her mediumship in the bio, and ignore any of the hundreds of other cases that remain veridical. They imply the one single case is evidential of Mrs. Piper being a fraud.
4. They make sure any criticism of Skeptic's biographies on Wikipedia are kept clean, and game and misuse the Wikipedia rules to make sure no fair criticism is visible of Skeptic Society members..
5. They have managed to get Wikipedia itself to label psi research as a "pseudo-science" when by all known definitions of science, parapsychology has had real scientists engage in real scientific experiments using empirical methods. They are also able to label scientists engaged in psi research as "pseudo-scientists". Both are misleading, dishonest terms - and are used frequently by Skeptics to abuse and game the Wikipedia rules further.
6. They are often dishonest in their claims to knowledge of psi & nde research. Often when pressed, they know very little about the actual scientific research that has been conducted now over 100+ years. Polemics you usually receive from Skeptics come from resources they use heavily from Skeptical websites. Most Skeptics remain ignorant of the details of the actual scientific research they vigorously attack. This too is dishonest, as they present themselves as being knowledgeable. Real Skepticism is not the same as Denial.
7. They pretend they speak for Science, when the Skeptic's Society is not even a scientific organization. Whereas organizations such as the Society for Psychical Research is a scientific organization and has conducted empirical studies now for over 100+ years. The Skeptic's Society as a rule discourages its members from performing scientific work in psi. This too presents a dishonest equivalency between real scientists and propagandists.
8. They are dishonest when they engage with people they call "proponents". The conversation is not based on a "good faith" dialogue, but instead, usually follows a well-established Skeptic's talking points agenda. Where proponents will be hammered with repeated attack lines, and are repeatedly asked to "Provide Evidence" - while at the same time, if any research is provided, the Skeptic will then use abrasive Skeptic talking points to dismiss whatever the proponent presents. Note that this kind of dialogue does not require the Skeptic to actually look at the empirical research themselves (and few of them do) - they simply use well-worn Skeptic talking points to deny the empirical study provided. The Skeptic almost never looks at the case study for themselves in greater detail.
9. When looking at the evidentiary data, the Skeptic will ignore veridical data and only look at data that is flawed and has the semblance of buttressing their denial of the research. A good example, recent studies demonstrating rats have an eeg burst just before death, was
latched on by many Skeptics as proof that NDEs are brain based. But veridical observations by NDErs who claim they are looking down upon themselves during an NDE and provide specific, unfakeable details of say resuscitation efforts is routinely ignored by Skeptics. This is intellectually dishonest.

I sort of went here from details of Wikipedia Skeptics to Skeptics in general. But my general thrust here is to demonstrate just how intellectually dishonest these new brand of Skeptics are. And that it is very difficult to engage in any kind of rational give and take with those who are deliberately engaged in dishonest conduct. It's like attempting to win a game of dice with someone who has decided they will only play the game with their dice loaded.

My Best,
Bertha

One word: Desperation.
 
Wiki Noise, Digital Wildfires, and Social Propaganda.
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/...oise-digital-wildfires-and-social-propaganda/

These guys are following me all over Reddit now.

http://www.reddit.com/r/rationalwiki/comments/35r9vt/rome_viharo/

http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/35taj8/wikipedia_we_have_a_problem_by_rome_viharo_troll/

And they keep claiming me reporting on harassment from members of the skeptic community is a conspiracy theory. lol.

Well, organized psi skeptics has a long history of unethical behaviour - they were actively engaged in it since the very inception of their movement.

Rome, you are probably informed about both these old cases, since they are well-known. But, if you are not, these would be an exciting reading: sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins and Science Versus Showmanship: A History of the Randi Hoax by Michael Thalbourne.

The first case is especially important, since it's a confession of a devoted skeptic who worked with the original skeptical organisation CSICOP - and became a witness (and, to some extent, an unwilling participant) of their fradulent and deceptive behaviour. He couldn't stand it, so he left and became a whistleblower.

The second one tells the story of the unsuccessful attempt to hoax parapsychologists, performed by a skeptical stage magician James Randi. It also dexcribes the later abuse of the media by him, which led to disinformation of many people about the hoax and its results - with skillful misleading, Randi trasformed his factual failure into an illusive success.
 
Last edited:
Well, organized psi skeptics has a long history of unethical behaviour - they were actively engaged in it since the very inception of their movement.

Rome, you are probably informed about both these old cases, since they are well-known. But, if you are not, these would be an exciting reading: sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins and Science Versus Showmanship: A History of the Randi Hoax by Michael Thalbourne.

The first case is especially important, since it's a confession of a devoted skeptic who worked with the original skeptical organisation CSICOP - and became a witness (and, to some extent, an unwilling participant) of their fradulent and deceptive behaviour. He couldn't stand it, so he left and became a whistleblower.

The second one tells the story of the unsuccessful attempt to hoax parapsychologists, performed by a skeptical stage magician James Randi. It also dexcribes the later abuse of the media by him, which led to disinformation of many people about the hoax and its results - with skillful misleading, Randi trasformed his factual failure into an illusive success.


Interesting. How would you say his Wikipedia article contextualizes what happened there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rawlins
 
Well, you see its okay, because Dennis Rawlins was supporting a conclusion that was pseudoscience. Even though the stats were significant to a high degree (much higher than you need to get published in peer reviewed journals), there must have been something wrong with the data.

Even if I can't find something wrong with the data, it doesn't make sense to my rational mind. So I can say it is wrong. My rule set is the one true rule set. I don't have to prove that his stats were wrong, even though I want to prove that he is wrong. I just win by default. I'm already right, so why waste my time proving him wrong? Why don't I just say he is wrong and save myself the effort? Then I can cite it on wikipedia as a victory for skeptics.

Most importantly, I think we can all agree that this Dennis Rawlins man deserves a Rationalwiki article for trying to defend pseudoscience.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top