Open main menu

Yes. We are biased.Edit

Stolen from FTN

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."
"What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[1][2]"

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been shown to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.
--Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a thought. I stole the above, and modified it a bit, from Guy. Don't blame him. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 18:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ha! It is actually impossible to steal anything I write. As it says on my user page:
"Everything I (Guy Macon) write on Wikipedia or anywhere else on the Internet is released under the Creative Commons CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license. See http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ and Creative Commons license#Zero for details. To the extent possible under law, I waive all copyright and related or neighboring rights to my work. You are free to use them for any purpose, including web pages, newsgroup posts, emails, and letters to the Los Angeles Times. I do not require you to give me credit. I would prefer that if somebody asks where you got it, you tell them, but that is up to you. You are even free to pretend you wrote it, just as everyone else is free to mock you when they find out what you did."
CC 0. For people who think [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC BY-SA 3.0 is too restrictive. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

I've just found that the real Roxy has [Lymphoma]. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. Reminds me of a riddle:
Q: How do you know your dog loves you?
A: Your dog loves you. He/she is a dog.
--Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
If you don't mind the interruption from watching the ongoing demonstration of the Law of holes, how is the real Roxy doing? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)