Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 10-06-2006, 02:03 PM

I have many links in wikipedia to my website. Just try it.

Kosh · 10-06-2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I have many links in wikipedia to my website. Just try it.

Wonder if it would be possible to write a WikiBot (tm)? The HTML interactions must be quite deterministic and therefore automatable.

repeat
{
Load page
Parse for contents
if contents not found
ad contents
} ad infinitum

Sauron · 10-06-2006, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

The Wikipedia page on

Peter Stoner needs some work. I've added a (brief) "Criticism of Stoner's Apologetics" section (which an anonymous fundie has already deleted once), but I haven't found a Stoner-specific critique on the Net that could be posted as an external reference.

This is the apologist from whom Josh McDowell inherited a lot of the erroneous material that ended up in Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Apologists invoke him quite often because he was a "real Professor", a genuine scientist who PROVED that the Bible was divinely inspired... so all you atheists are being irrational if you reject this PROOF!

But his book, Science Speaks, is online... and it is garbage. Some of the most atrociously inept apologetics I have ever seen!

I'm considering writing a detailed critique for Wikipedia: but their rules are a minefield. Articles must maintain a neutral point of view, though opinions can be expressed if they are quotes from "notable authorities" or if they are backed by verifiable facts. Possibly more problematic is no original research: it is forbidden to say anything new on Wikipedia, even if it's based on facts that CAN be solidly supported. Which implies that I can't demonstrate that Stoner was inept (even if I can solidly prove it) if no notable source has demonstrated it before.

A list of bare facts might work, if the (well-referenced) facts that contradict Stoner's assertions are presented with no additional commentary, no attempts to draw conclusions from those facts. This would also allow apologetic excuses to be shot down: inevitably, they would be unsupported speculations (though possibly still citable as the opinions of "notable sources"). The reader would be left to draw his/her own conclusions.

There is also a danger that the whole lot could be deleted as "beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia", especially if it gets big: a brief critique is more likely to survive, and a link to a Stoner-specific rebuttal elsewhere on the Net (by a "notable" source) certainly would. There is some precedent for including brief critiques of their major claims on biographies of controversial figures whose work contradicts mainstream views.

Hi Jack (I just love saying that) :Cheeky:

1. I've also done a quick review of Stoner's crippled work here during another debate.

2. And over here is the shred-fest where a poster by the name of One Who Replies gets his ass handed to him for trying to defend Stoner.

3. And way over here we see that the "peer reviewers" offered by Stoner's defender are not what they seem to be.

I have a more extensive review of the McDowell-Stoner relationship in one of my papers. Let me know if you need something else.

Sauron, Dark Lord on the Dark Throne :devil3:

Cheerful Charlie · 10-06-2006, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

The Wikipedia page on

Peter Stoner needs some work. I've added a (brief) "Criticism of Stoner's Apologetics" section (which an anonymous fundie has already deleted once), but I haven't found a Stoner-specific critique on the Net that could be posted as an external reference.

This is the apologist from whom Josh McDowell inherited a lot of the erroneous material that ended up in Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Apologists invoke him quite often because he was a "real Professor", a genuine scientist who PROVED that the Bible was divinely inspired... so all you atheists are being irrational if you reject this PROOF!

But his book, Science Speaks, is online... and it is garbage. Some of the most atrociously inept apologetics I have ever seen!

I'm considering writing a detailed critique for Wikipedia: but their rules are a minefield. Articles must maintain a neutral point of view, though opinions can be expressed if they are quotes from "notable authorities" or if they are backed by verifiable facts. Possibly more problematic is no original research: it is forbidden to say anything new on Wikipedia, even if it's based on facts that CAN be solidly supported. Which implies that I can't demonstrate that Stoner was inept (even if I can solidly prove it) if no notable source has demonstrated it before.

A list of bare facts might work, if the (well-referenced) facts that contradict Stoner's assertions are presented with no additional commentary, no attempts to draw conclusions from those facts. This would also allow apologetic excuses to be shot down: inevitably, they would be unsupported speculations (though possibly still citable as the opinions of "notable sources"). The reader would be left to draw his/her own conclusions.

There is also a danger that the whole lot could be deleted as "beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia", especially if it gets big: a brief critique is more likely to survive, and a link to a Stoner-specific rebuttal elsewhere on the Net (by a "notable" source) certainly would. There is some precedent for including brief critiques of their major claims on biographies of controversial figures whose work contradicts mainstream views.

Is he as bad as Archer Gleason? Maybe what is needed is to find a major atheist website somewhere amenable to setting aside a section for reviews of apologists. And start
doing reviews of this crap. Eventually over years, it will become a major source. THEN,
do a wikipedia take off. Link to the website. Maybe Internet Infidels will be willing to set up a
apologists review section.

Link to other existing reviews.

C.S. Lewis needs a good going over, he seems to be one of the most popular
apologists with net christians. There are also a jillion apologists sites.
I suspect most of em have cribbed this stuff from the Stoners, McDowells, Strobels et al.

So many fools, so little time.
I suspect you already know about the wikipedia christian apologists article.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-09-2006, 06:48 AM

Sauron: thanks for that! If you have stuff in an online article, that might carry more weight than links to IIDB posts. But the material will be useful in arguments "behind the scenes" on the Talk page in any event.

I'm going to expand the American Scientific Affiliation material that my opponent has now so graciously provided, to mention the interesting coincidence that Stoner was co-founder of the little club that endorsed his book. It's also interesting to note that the ASA includes YEC's in its membership: not exactly a paragon of scientific integrity.

Sauron · 10-09-2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Sauron: thanks for that! If you have stuff in an online article, that might carry more weight than links to IIDB posts.

My article is not online. I could not come to an agreement with Infidels over the conditions for hosting it.

If you want to send me your real email in a PM, I'll send you a copy that you can use.

Quote:

I'm going to expand the American Scientific Affiliation material that my opponent has now so graciously provided, to mention the interesting coincidence that Stoner was co-founder of the little club that endorsed his book. It's also interesting to note that the ASA includes YEC's in its membership: not exactly a paragon of scientific integrity.

Stoner is a nut. You should hammer home the point that instead of using an existing, self-respecting scientific organization to review his book, he had to create a new organization from scratch. Stacking the deck of reviewers with people that will give you the results you want is hardly objective science.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-06-2006, 02:03 PM	#11
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	I have many links in wikipedia to my website. Just try it.

10-09-2006, 06:48 AM	#15
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Sauron: thanks for that! If you have stuff in an online article, that might carry more weight than links to IIDB posts. But the material will be useful in arguments "behind the scenes" on the Talk page in any event. I'm going to expand the American Scientific Affiliation material that my opponent has now so graciously provided, to mention the interesting coincidence that Stoner was co-founder of the little club that endorsed his book. It's also interesting to note that the ASA includes YEC's in its membership: not exactly a paragon of scientific integrity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.