What Would You Like To See In The SkepticWiki? [Archive]

Dr Adequate

6th January 2006, 10:12 AM

The SkepticWiki (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page) is here.

Some notes on answering the question:

(1) Since this is an attempt to gauge what would be popular, posts saying "I agree with such-and-such previous posters" are data.

(2) I don't mind at all if you mention a subject which the SkepicWiki has already covered. I'll link you to it and look smug.

(3) Besides suggesting subjects for articles, suggestions for content along the lines of: "Any article on so-and-so should contain the following experimental result / data / link/ apt and witty quotation from a famous scientist" are helpful.

(4) The most useful articles (IMNAAHO) are the ones which deal comprehensively with subjects which come up again and again. What is it that makes you say:"Oh no, not this again"?

Thanks for your participation.

luchog

6th January 2006, 11:16 AM

I'd like to see more in-depth info on specific people; particularly those perennial woo-woo favorites who have been around for quite some time; like Castaneda, Frazier, Crowley, etc.

Detailed info on certain "new age" type religions would be useful as well, especially debunking some of their more outrageous and clearly erroneous claims (eg. the way many Wiccans claim ancient, unbroken lineage for their religious tradition, though it's only about 50 years old).

Info on some of the historical scientific leaders, particularly debunking some of the more woo-ish claims made about them (eg. Tesla's "death ray" and "anti-gravity engine"). Also debunking some of the hero-worship surrounding some of them as well (eg. Galileo was pretty seriously woo-woo as well.)

Johnny Pixels

6th January 2006, 01:03 PM

A short lesson on the correct use of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If it's already there then I apologise, but I'm just off to the pub and didn't have time to check.

Formerly

6th January 2006, 02:48 PM

I was looking through SkepticWiki last night, looks like a great resource so far

(3) Besides suggesting subjects for articles, suggestions for content along the lines of: "Any article on so-and-so should contain the following experimental result / data / link/ apt and witty quotation from a famous scientist" are helpful.

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but:

An addition to the astrology article could indicate that some astrologers do use Ophiuchus when doing charts - many believe that it was the sign jesus or other spiritual leaders were born under. As of around 5 or so years ago, when I stopped my astrology hobby, there was a lot of intense discussion about it.

Also, astrologers aren't content many times with your birthtime, they'll want to 'rectify' it many times. This would be an 'out' for some astrologers, they can/could claim that the birth certificate time of birth was 'off' and so their chart wasn't as accurate as a result. And for usually x$ extra, they'll rectify your birthtime and find your 'real' birth time.

The angles of separation aren't between planets and signs generally - they're generally used in the context of angles between planets/major asteroids and certain special non-planetary parts of a chart (The part of fortune, the north and south node of the moon, and the 'beginning' of certain houses in a chart - depending on what system you use to calculate the chart).

Another problem with astrology is that there are a lot of different ways to squish the planets, signs, etc into a chart - one popular software had, I think, around 15 different ways to calculate a chart. Some of those systems resulted in charts that would be radically different than if you used a different house system. Which one is right? (none of them...)

I couldn't find an article about Flower Essences. I've seen ones made from parts of animals where, unlike homeopathy, no part actually goes into the substance you'd purchase - it's just 'energy' from the part that's supposedly harnessed and bottled.

Hope this is what you meant with your post, in any case, it's a great resource!!

Dr Adequate

6th January 2006, 02:55 PM

I'd like to see more in-depth info on specific people; particularly those perennial woo-woo favorites who have been around for quite some time; like Castaneda, Frazier, Crowley, etc.[/i]We have a section on specific woos (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/People%28index%29#Purveyors_of_Questionable_Theori es), but not the ones you mention.

Fred Hoyle should go on the list too. Not that many people believe in xenogenesis, but he's the source of many of the more popular creationist arguments.

Detailed info on certain "new age" type religions would be useful as well, especially debunking some of their more outrageous and clearly erroneous claims (eg. the way many Wiccans claim ancient, unbroken lineage for their religious tradition, though it's only about 50 years old).That's one of my bugbears too.

Info on some of the historical scientific leaders, particularly debunking some of the more woo-ish claims made about them (eg. Tesla's "death ray" and "anti-gravity engine"). Also debunking some of the hero-worship surrounding some of them as well (eg. Galileo was pretty seriously woo-woo as well.)
Oh yes, Tesla. He also invented the machine which the government uses to control the weather. I don't know what it is with him and woos.

Dr Adequate

6th January 2006, 03:01 PM

A short lesson on the correct use of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If it's already there then I apologise... No need to apologise, I'm pleased if people want something we've got!

The Second Law Of Thermodynamics (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics)

"Evolution Violates The Second Law Of Thermodynamics" (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Evolution_Violates_The_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamic s) from the "Specious Creationist Claims" section.

JMA

6th January 2006, 04:09 PM

Ducky

6th January 2006, 09:12 PM

The Titanium Superhero.

Start writing that entry.

Link to the blog:

www.fowlsound.com/blog

(yes I am shameless.)

Dr Adequate

7th January 2006, 10:33 AM

I wish to see more about Aliens & UFOs. The page "Unidentified Flying Object" is still a stub, as well as Roswell... For the moment, the discution about the "Philadelphia Experiment" and the "Bermuda Triangle" are fine. But I really feel there is a lot more to say about UFOs (what about Adamski, Billy Meier and so on...)...

Could we have a longer list? In the meantime, I'll see if I can expand the UFOs article ... that shouldn't still be a stub.

I think one of the problems here is that none of the regular contributors to the SkepticWiki are specialists in UFO woo ... and it doesn't come up much on these forums, now I think of it. Perhaps we could advertise for an expert on BadAstronomy --- they probably get a lot of alien woo.

Melendwyr

7th January 2006, 10:34 AM

I wish to see more about skepticism and religious belief.

Dr Adequate

7th January 2006, 11:07 AM

I wish to see more about skepticism and religious belief.
Could you be a tiny bit more specific? There will, of course, be more about Religion and Philosophy (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Religion_and_Philosophy%28Index%29) as the SkepticWiki fills up. Is there anything in particular you want to see covered? How should we set our priorities in order to make this a useful resource for skeptics?

Wolverine

7th January 2006, 01:47 PM

Could we have a longer list? In the meantime, I'll see if I can expand the UFOs article ... that shouldn't still be a stub.

I think one of the problems here is that none of the regular contributors to the SkepticWiki are specialists in UFO woo ... and it doesn't come up much on these forums, now I think of it. Perhaps we could advertise for an expert on BadAstronomy --- they probably get a lot of alien woo.
Perhaps it'd be beneficial to include a list of popular "incidents" beyond Roswell and related topics which crop up on a regular basis. We get repeat instances of junk like the following over at BAUT (http://www.bautforum.com/):

Incident claims:
Tunguska (http://www.jamesoberg.com/ufo/tungus.html) (#2 (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,688585,00.html))
Kecksburg (http://www.debunker.com/Kecksburg.html)
Rendlesham Forest (http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm) (Volare! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series3/rendlesham_ufos.shtml))
Campeche (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/campeche.html) (#2 (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/archives/2004/04-07-24.html))
Gulf Breeze (http://ufocasebook.com/gulfbreeze.html)
Alleged astronaut UFO sightings during NASA program flights; Gemini, Apollo, Space Shuttle (particularly STS-48 (http://www.debunker.com/texts/sts48_ufo.html)). Oberg's page (http://www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html) has a great list of standard fare.Topical claims:
"UFOs are depicted in artwork throughout history!" Not (http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm).
"Steven Greer's Disclosure Project has hundreds of experts & witnesses!" Yawn (http://www.disclosureproject.com/).
"There are UFOs (http://www.iwasabducted.com/nasaufos/soho2001.htm)/anomalous objects/Planet X (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/soho.html) in SOHO (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/) imagery!" Hardly (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_01_17/).
UFO hoaxters: e.g. Billy Meier (http://www.billymeier.com/), Ed Walters (http://members.aol.com/timprinty/myhomepage/Ed01.html).
"Rods (http://www.roswellrods.com/)"... (#1 (http://www.amsky.com/ufos/rods/), #2 (http://skepdic.com/rods.html))Just some ideas/suggestions off the top of my head. If afterthoughts pop up I'll post them.

Mercutio

7th January 2006, 02:07 PM

The circular reasoning article (under "begging the question"--I'd like to see it available under "circular reasoning" as well. I suppose that goes for any fallacy that has multiple names; if someone is told "that's circular", they may not know what fallacy to look up.) is nice, but simplistic. Dissection of practically any random Iacchus post (or with names changed to protect the innocent) could show how this fallacy can show up in practice.

Dr Adequate

7th January 2006, 04:49 PM

Suggestions, please? I myself can't make head nor tail of Iacchus. Some RL examples would be nice.

Mercutio

7th January 2006, 05:55 PM

I'll see what I can do.

8th January 2006, 07:05 AM

I have noted that various woos, here and elsewhere, have virtually no understanding of sensory processes. I have a friend-woo who didn't understand that a crackpot was using pressure phosphenes to demonstrate his oneness with whatsoever.

People don't understand how the senses can play tricks on them. There are some striking demonstrations of visual lateral inhibition that explicitly demonstrate that you can "see" things that are not there. Disney has a demo that shows how you can feel "hot" when the stimuli are not hot in the least. These things address a wide variety of woo beliefs.

Neuropsychology and psychopharmacology provide demonstrations of how "reality" can easily be brought under stimulus control and bear on a bunch of issues like stupid OBEs.

Various learning experiments (the Grinspoon Effect comes to mind) demonstrate how humans can learn something and be conditioned to respond a certain way without awareness.

All of this underscores how fallible humans can be as observers and how anicdotal evidence is flawed.

Another issue concerns misuse of statistics. We have seen this done again and again. Some guy does a study (prayer is a hot one for this) and looks at some large inventory of dependent variables. Lo and behold there is an effect! The problem is that they are not controlling for chance adequitely. This came up on the current homeopathy thread, regarding various prayer studies and will rear it's head agin shortly:

The current project is a considerable improvement on the original in a number of respects. The sample sizes have been increased from the 200 characteristics of the first study to the 600 involved in the present experiment.
http://www.parkridgecenter.org/Page177.html

600 variables will suggest about 30 positive effects of prayer. A bogus finding. Data mining can be useful but in the hands of a woo, it is a deqadly weapon.

Please look at Bill's post (last one) to see that woo research that had been discussed for pages, and looked somewhat solid, was basically crap because of their statistical legerdemain.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=33221&page=17

Any sceptic, even the anumeric, should be able to recognize this problem and be able to explain it in reasonable, layman, terms.

I haven't looked but it also seems to me that something on experimental design ought to be included. Like, what constitutes a control, stuff like that.

Edit... this is a link to the Byrd article on prayer. It is touted as "proof". IMO it is fatally flawed.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.doc

El Greco

8th January 2006, 07:22 AM

I'd like to see cosmetics debunked. False claims about cellulitis, anti-ageing, slimming etc. exposed.

Wolverine

8th January 2006, 07:56 AM

http://www.godandscience.org (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.doc)

Worst.

Website.

Ever.

luchog

8th January 2006, 12:19 PM

Oh yes, Tesla. He also invented the machine which the government uses to control the weather. I don't know what it is with him and woos.
I think it's because Tesla was so dramatically different from most scientists, particularly the popular image of the reclusive, obsessive intellectual, which has changed little from Tesla's time. Unlike the average researcher, he was very social and charismatic (and from what I've read, was quite a hit with the ladies). He also had a strong sense of the theatrical and dramatic when it came to demonstrating his inventions and principles for a general (non-technical) audience. The DC vs AC current for public electrical utilities debate, and his demo in particular, is one that jumps immediately to mind.

His methods of working were dramatically different from what was considered typical; and was a genius of the sort which is rarely seen. He was also noticibly eccentric during a period renowned for bizarreness and eccentricity; particularly when it came to documenting his own work, as well as a number of personal habits. Add to that, he proposed a number of projects which still have a seriously woo-ish sound to them, if one fails to keep them in their appropriate context (the state of scientific knowledge of the time, as well as Tesla's method of visualizing and testing his creations).

drkitten

10th January 2006, 09:04 AM

The circular reasoning article (under "begging the question"--I'd like to see it available under "circular reasoning" as well. I suppose that goes for any fallacy that has multiple names; if someone is told "that's circular", they may not know what fallacy to look up.) is nice, but simplistic.

I'm on this. If you want to PM me with a list of suggested duplicate names, that will help ensure completeness in coverage.

Having said that, I'm not sure that usng more extensive examples will necessarily make the point
any clearer. The point of teaching examples is to be simplistic, isn't it?

drkitten

10th January 2006, 09:06 AM

Another issue concerns misuse of statistics. We have seen this done again and again. Some guy does a study (prayer is a hot one for this) and looks at some large inventory of dependent variables. Lo and behold there is an effect! The problem is that they are not controlling for chance adequitely. This came up on the current homeopathy thread, regarding various prayer studies and will rear it's head agin shortly:

600 variables will suggest about 30 positive effects of prayer. A bogus finding. Data mining can be useful but in the hands of a woo, it is a deqadly weapon.

I haven't looked but it also seems to me that something on experimental design ought to be included. Like, what constitutes a control, stuff like that.\

I'm also working on this, but good, accessible articles on statistics are surprisingly hard to write. I guess there's a reason why all my stats texts in school sucked dead rat through a straw. Check back in a month and tell me if the new articles meet your standards.

Hellbound

10th January 2006, 12:58 PM

Circular reasoning-n. See Begging the question.

Begging the Question-v. See Circular Reasoning.

Circular reasoning-n. See Begging the question.

Begging the Question-v. See Circular Reasoning.

Circular reasoning-n. See Begging the question.

Begging the Question-v. See Circular Reasoning.

Circular reasoning-n. See Begging the question.

Begging the Question-v. See Circular Reasoning.

:D

luchog

11th January 2006, 10:33 AM

Of course, what the SkepticWiki truly needs is pictorial essays on a bunch of hot naked intellectuals. :D

Melendwyr

11th January 2006, 10:49 AM

I'd still like to see something with the application of skeptical thought to religion.

Ladewig

11th January 2006, 01:59 PM

I'd like to see more details on Uri Geller. Specifically, his involvement with the football clubs and his predicting scores (most often predicting 1-0 and 2-1).

I've also read about Geller's claim that some of his power comes from a spaceship orbiting Earth, named Spectra in an obscure book published in the late 1970's. Did he really say that? Also, did he predict the "imminent arrival of UFOs" in April 1975?

c4ts

11th January 2006, 02:21 PM

The martial arts could use a section. Plenty of topics like chi, pressure points, ninja magic, and Yellow Bamboo to explore.

c4ts

11th January 2006, 02:22 PM

Worst.

Website.

Ever.

Sadly, no. The words website ever is called "School Days." You REALLY don't want to know.

JMA

12th January 2006, 12:39 AM

Perhaps it'd be beneficial to include a list of popular "incidents" beyond Roswell and related topics which crop up on a regular basis. We get repeat instances of junk like the following over at BAUT (http://www.bautforum.com/):

Incident claims:
Tunguska (http://www.jamesoberg.com/ufo/tungus.html) (#2 (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,688585,00.html))
Kecksburg (http://www.debunker.com/Kecksburg.html)
Rendlesham Forest (http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm) (Volare! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series3/rendlesham_ufos.shtml))
Campeche (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/campeche.html) (#2 (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/archives/2004/04-07-24.html))
Gulf Breeze (http://ufocasebook.com/gulfbreeze.html)
Alleged astronaut UFO sightings during NASA program flights; Gemini, Apollo, Space Shuttle (particularly STS-48 (http://www.debunker.com/texts/sts48_ufo.html)). Oberg's page (http://www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html) has a great list of standard fare.Topical claims:
"UFOs are depicted in artwork throughout history!" Not (http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm).
"Steven Greer's Disclosure Project has hundreds of experts & witnesses!" Yawn (http://www.disclosureproject.com/).
"There are UFOs (http://www.iwasabducted.com/nasaufos/soho2001.htm)/anomalous objects/Planet X (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/soho.html) in SOHO (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/) imagery!" Hardly (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_01_17/).
UFO hoaxters: e.g. Billy Meier (http://www.billymeier.com/), Ed Walters (http://members.aol.com/timprinty/myhomepage/Ed01.html).
"Rods (http://www.roswellrods.com/)"... (#1 (http://www.amsky.com/ufos/rods/), #2 (http://skepdic.com/rods.html))Just some ideas/suggestions off the top of my head. If afterthoughts pop up I'll post them.

I fully agree with that list. There is a lot of interresting topics in it.

But my feeling is we are missing in the JREFWiki "Aliens & Ufos" section even more general pages, like for exemple "Abduction phenomena". The "crop circle" pages is still very short. What about the "Condon Report"? Or pages about some famous people like Däniken or Hynek? Something about "UFOs pictures" (and how to fake them) would be nice too...

My point is: before going to writte about the Campeche case or Gulf Breeze, there is more general stuff to talk about...

Dr Adequate

12th January 2006, 06:13 AM

Of course, what the SkepticWiki truly needs is pictorial essays on a bunch of hot naked intellectuals. :DHere (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Tarot_Pack)

I don't know if she's intellectual.

Diamond

12th January 2006, 06:31 AM

I'd like to see Fowlsound write some book reviews starting with "Snake Oil" by John Diamond ;)

Dr Adequate

12th January 2006, 06:32 AM

Perhaps it'd be beneficial to include a list of popular "incidents" beyond Roswell and related topics which crop up on a regular basis. We get repeat instances of junk like the following over at BAUT (http://www.bautforum.com/)I fully agree with that list. There is a lot of interresting topics in it.

But my feeling is we are missing in the JREFWiki "Aliens & Ufos" section even more general pages, like for exemple "Abduction phenomena". The "crop circle" pages is still very short. What about the "Condon Report"? Or pages about some famous people like Däniken or Hynek? Something about "UFOs pictures" (and how to fake them) would be nice too...
Would either of you consider writing some of the articles on this topic? And / or asking the people at BadAstronomy forums to join in?

As I say, the reason that we don't have much in this section is simply that we don't yet have a regular contributor who has any expertise in UFO woo: I myself have hardly heard of the specific subjects you mention.

Diamond

12th January 2006, 04:09 PM

I'd like more people from BAUT to join in as well. Especially articles on Special and General Relativity, and the fun and games caused by some posters who won't quit.

I should point out that the SkepticWiki is for science subjects as well as debunking nonsense.

Ashles

12th January 2006, 09:18 PM

I'd really like to see the article on Quantum Mechanics and it's misuse by believers in the paranormal that I really want to write but am continually too lazy to.

Perhaps you could provide a link via a wormhole in the quantum foam to an alternate dimension in which I have already written it?

Or else use relativity to choose some photons which are displaying the article on a monitor in the future and use entanglement to 'transmit' the information to linked photons now which could display the text?

Or maybe I should simply use the chaotic nature of particles to throw some ink down and utilise the observer effect to cause the fully written article to appear on a piece of paper as a result of the effect of my consciousness on the uncertain nature of measuring subatomic ink particles. In accordance with Copenhagen and the "What the bleep do we know" theory.

Seriously I am so bad with deadlines.

Ashles

12th January 2006, 09:31 PM

Have we reached any consensus about different homeopathic dilutions and their relative volumes of water per single molecule of active remedy?
If so I think some graphics on the subject would be really helpful (which I could certainly help with).
It might be nice to see what 12X might look like in physical terms. 24X. 50C etc.

A couple of other issues:

I typed "Scepticwiki" into Google and got nothing (apart from one JREF forums entry). Might it not be useful to have that as an alternative way of reaching the "SkepticWiki"?
(After all some people still spell "Sceptic" correctly these days.)

Also, when continuing to look for the main page I typed "Skepticwiki.org" and came across the SkepticWiki blog.
It seems strange to have the blog there instead of the main page. To start with I thought this might be searchable for the SW site, but it wasn't. It was a bit confusing and odd for the casual visitor.

JMA

13th January 2006, 03:10 AM

Would either of you consider writing some of the articles on this topic? And / or asking the people at BadAstronomy forums to join in?

Maybe... English is not my native language and it's why I'm hesitating. But asking the BadAstromony forums, of course we can do that...

geni

13th January 2006, 04:28 AM

Have we reached any consensus about different homeopathic dilutions and their relative volumes of water per single molecule of active remedy?

yes

[quote]
If so I think some graphics on the subject would be really helpful (which I could certainly help with).
It might be nice to see what 12X might look like in physical terms. 24X. 50C etc.[quote]

Small problem with the server tyring to store images the size of a small galexy.

Lothian

13th January 2006, 06:09 AM

Have you considered a section for proven paranormal claims ?

I have included a first draft below.

Proven Paranormal Claims

[edit]

Darat

13th January 2006, 06:13 AM

yes

[quote]
If so I think some graphics on the subject would be really helpful (which I could certainly help with).
It might be nice to see what 12X might look like in physical terms. 24X. 50C etc.[quote]

Small problem with the server tyring to store images the size of a small galexy.

You could do something like a drop of water to represnet the first dilution then show it over a beaker for 1x, a bath for the next, a swimming pool, ocean, planet, a solar system, a galaxy and so on.

drfrank

13th January 2006, 09:57 AM

You could do something like a drop of water to represnet the first dilution then show it over a beaker for 1x, a bath for the next, a swimming pool, ocean, planet, a solar system, a galaxy and so on.

After a quick playing around with the numbers...

If you imagine a sphere defined by the radius of the Milky Way galaxy (6000 light years) as your solution, the amount of active ingredient in a 50C homeopathic mixture would be a cube of side 0.001 angstroms. In bulk materials, atoms tend to sit at least 1 angstrom apart.

This is fun :)

Wolverine

15th January 2006, 09:16 PM

Would either of you consider writing some of the articles on this topic? And / or asking the people at BadAstronomy forums to join in?
Sure thing.

With Phil's permission, I've posted this sticky (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=37076) in our Conspiracy Theories section on BA/UT to recruit some help.

Dr Adequate

15th January 2006, 11:05 PM

Thank you!

* does happy dance *

Having seen your stick, I should add that to be quite accurate, there's no formal conection between the SkepticWiki and the JREF. It was founded by JREF forumites after a discussion on the forums, but this is a merely historical connection. So far from wishing to be exclusive, there are all sorts of people who really ought to join in: BAUT, Bullshido (martial arts skeptics) The Halls Of Maat (history skeptics) etc: the specialists.

Dr Adequate

15th January 2006, 11:12 PM

The martial arts could use a section. Plenty of topics like chi, pressure points, ninja magic, and Yellow Bamboo to explore.Again, I think this is going to require recruitment (see previous post). I'm fairly sure none of the regular contributors can break breezeblocks on their foreheads.

Wolverine

15th January 2006, 11:34 PM