Column 16: A Pox on Thee!

Lone Grasshopper draws our attention to the fact that this is all Andrew Schlafly wants us to know about smallpox:

Smallpox is an acute, highly infectious, often fatal disease caused by a poxvirus and characterized by high fever and aches with subsequent widespread eruption of pimples that blister, produce pus, and form pockmarks. It is also called variola.

Well, that is… concise. It’s also pretty ridiculous, because there exists an earlier and much longer variant of this articl, which was actually really good. Well-written, informative and concise (at least in the non-Schlaflyan meaning of that term, i.e. imparting much information in relatively little space.)

Mr. Schlafly doesn’t want us to see that, however. He’s pretty adamant about it, too:

Revision as of 10:24, 4 June 2007 (edit) (undo)
Aschlafly (Talk | contribs)
(reverting again; don’t revert back to the longer version or else your account will be blocked)

Now, most of us know perfectly well that Conservapedia cares much more about having a large number of articles to parade on the Main Page than about the actual quality of those articles, but even then, this seems a little extreme. The logical conclusion is that there is something in the longer article that mr. Schalfly doesn’t want us to see, but which would be too obvious to remove specifically. My guess is vaccination is the problem. Probably this paragraph in particular:

Eradication

“The annihilation of smallpox—the dreadful scourge of the human race—will be the final result of vaccination.” – Edward Jenner

Jenner predicted shortly after his initial trial vaccination that smallpox would eventually be eliminated as a threat to humanity. Although many western nations had achieved mandatory vaccination programs, other countries could not afford the expense. As early as 1958, the Soviet Union called from the eradication of smallpox by a volunteer effort. Beginning in 1967, the World Health Organization began a world wide vaccination campaign with the purpose of eradicating smallpox. The last natural case of variola major occurred in 1975, and the last natural case of variola minor in 1977.

Most reasonable people agree that the eradication of smallpox has probably been one of the greatest successes of modern medical history, saving countless lives through a coordinated effort of vaccination. Mr. Schlafly, however, seems to disagree, and there is probably a reason for that. Mr. Schlafly, you see, has the distinction of being General Counsel to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a strongly right-wing medical association which, among other things, is a strong opponent of mandatory vaccination. One can only guess what the good people in the AAPS think of a vaccination campaign like this one, especially a worldwide one perpetrated by an evil socialist international organization like the WHO. After all, one must not lose sight of the essentials here! And one could also guess that they might expect their General Counsel mr. Schlafly to… deal with differing opinions on his “trustworthy encyclopedia” in a smartly fashion.

Of course, some may argue that this is hardly in keeping with Conservapedia’s stated “neutrality to the facts”, but really – what does a little suppression of true and verifiable history and medical facts in the pursuit of economic benefit and ideological motives mean among friends?

Good night, and good luck.

UPDATE: Kelly Ramsey has a similar analysis of this issue and provides some more sources.

En Passant: Ed Poor vs. Jack Sparrow

This quote from the Main Page Talk caught my eye:

The government cannot permanently maintain an official “neutrality” toward religious and moral issues. Look at Wikipedia and their arbitration committee, which has become their acting government. They pretend to maintain a neutral stance toward everything, but they end up protecting some views more than others.

It would be be better to adopt an official view, and then define various degrees of tolerance for disparate or opposing views. For example, the Judeo-Christian ethic against murder and theft could be non-negotiable, but a mild degree of tolerance could be shown toward, say, Robin Hood (steal from the rich, give to the poor) with strong disapproval given to piracy (no ads for “Pirates of the Caribbean”) or socialist confiscation of property.

An ethic of support for pre-marital chastity would be good for any school system or government. Perhaps those parents who believe in promiscuity could be allowed to opt out, but the school staff should not tell girls to take off their chastity rings. –Ed Poor ^Talk 17:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Is it just me, or does that sound like something distastefully close to a theocracy? Either way, it seems decidedly not-conservative to want the state to interfere with ads for entirely harmless non-violent movies, or with something as personal as whether or not to engage in pre-marital sex.

Makes you wonder how widespread such opinions are among the Conservapedia administrator group as a whole.

Column 15: Open Letter to SharonS, by AmesG

The following letter was first posted on RationalWiki by User:AmesG as a response to certain statements in the L.A. Times article from June 20. It was unsuccessfully attempted to bring this to the attention of the recipient at Conservapedia.

I personally agree completely with the contents of the letter, and am reposting it here to ensure that as many people as possible see it, hopefully including SharonS.

-AKjeldsen/lanfranc

- – - – -

 

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by petty statesmen…
Whoso would be a Man must be a nonconformist…
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

Dear SharonS,

I saw the quote attributed to you in the LA Times today. Of course we knew instantly it was you; your interests are fairly unique, and we’re not as dumb as we look. However, some of your statements saddened me. I would like to take the time to address what I feel are misconceptions about the RationalWiki and Conservapedia projects. I thank you, in advance, for your time in reading this. I write this only because I care about the education that you are receiving through Conservapedia, and as an American and a man of some education, there is nothing that I consider more important than the proper education of those younger than myself.

I.

First, I apologize for the vandalism attacks on Conservapedia. I can say categorically that I have no hand in them myself. I can also say that this site is not the launching point of the more recent or persistent ones. Certainly there is a small vandal group here, but that is not all this website is. As a smart person, I am sure you can see past that small facade into the rest of the goals of the project.

II.

Because it always bears repeating, I want to enumerate again the goals of this project and of the Conservapedia “resistance.” We are not pushing an ideology. We are not pushing a world-view. We are not suppressing faith. We respect faith. However, we do not respect the use of ideology and shallow Biblical literalism to confine the world to a narrow frame of reference, ignoring all of the contrasts and questions that otherwise enrich life, and we do not respect the same shallow literalism, which also confines faith in too narrow a frame of reference. We will continue to spend our time resisting those evils.

Here is the problem. At Conservapedia, you are getting one perspective, and one perspective only. Worse, you are being sectioned off from anything that might challenge you. You are isolated from controversy and told that, where debate exists, the answers have been solved in black and white in your favor. But the world is much more complicated than that: so little is black and white in the world, and most of the great questions of our day are shades of gray. And these shades are what make life compelling, and interesting. By shielding you from the shades of gray, and teaching you only one perspective, Mr. Schlafly is doing you a great disservice. For the mind to grow, it must be exposed to shades of gray. Not only are you not learning; you’re also not learning how to learn! To become a full person, you must grapple with dissent, and all of the myriad complexity of the world, with full academic freedom.

III.

You said in your interview that RationalWiki seeks your destruction. We do not seek your destruction; rather, we seek your growth, and the growth of all of humanity through free academic discourse. But we are in favor of some forms of destruction. In brief, insofar as we seek the destruction of barriers to free learning, we do seek Conservapedia’s destruction. Insofar as we seek the destruction of ideologies that discourage free thought, the exchange of ideas, and valuable learning (God’s gift to Man), we do seek the destruction of Conservapedia. Insofar as we seek the destruction of groups that abuse religion to force a political agenda and keep their followers willfully blind to the world around themselves, we seek the destruction of Conservapedia.

However, we do not seek the destruction of Christianity or Christian beliefs. Religion is a powerful force for good. When followed as God intends it, it impels the human spirit forwards to great heights of charity and grace. The truly devout and truly religious do great things in this world. However, no good is ever accomplished by suppressing independent thought, or by approaching the world from a narrow perspective which assumes the preferred outcome. Rather, that is the great evil of all of human history. I will always encourage religion in its pure, unadulterated sense, but where religion goes too far – in seeking to control public policy or redefine science – religion harms those disciplines and itself. We at RationalWiki, as members of the scientific community of freethinking adults, seek to separate religion from science and politics not for the preservation of science and politics, and the hindrance of religion, but rather for the protection of religion, science, and politics jointly and severally. Only when the mind approaches the world free of religious agenda can the mind be free, and only when religion confines itself to the truly spiritual can it reach the levels of transcendence of which it is capable.

IV.

To conclude, I urge you to look beyond Conservapedia, and beyond what you have read before, and read what you have not. I urge you to challenge yourself: pick up an “evolutionist” textbook, and wrestle with the text and the ideas it contains. Pick up a volume on Christian history, or a volume of early Christian theology, and see how St. Augustine of Hippo himself spoke against unifying religion and science. Read about other religions. Read about other countries, and other lifestyles. Expand yourself’, and see how you think of the world afterwards. If, after all is said and done, you remain firm in your convictions, then your convictions will be firmer for the testing. But if they have changed…

V.

Please feel free to write to any of us at RationalWiki. I can answer any questions you have about the law, society, Christian history, and ancient history. My e-mail is Ames@NYU.edu. Many other people are willing to help you, too. You have only to ask. We have nothing to hide.

-AmesG 00:46, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

En Passant: Joke

Well, at least some people on Conservapedia actually have a sense of humor.

An archaeologist was digging in the Negev Desert in Israel and came upon a casket containing a mummy, a rather rare occurance in Israel, to say the least. After examining it, he called the curator of the Israel museum in Jerusalem.

“I’ve just discovered a 3,000 year old mummy of a man who died of heart failure!” the excited scientist exclaimed.

To which the curator replied, “Bring him in. We’ll check it out.”

A week later, the amazed curator called the archaeologist. “You were right about both the mummy’s age and cause of death. How in the world did you know?”

“Easy. There was a piece of paper in his hand that said, ‘10,000 Shekels on Goliath’.”

Comparison of Conservapedia and Wikipedia

Aaron Sherman of AJS.com has been attempting to track the relative quality of Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia, applying a consistent set of metric criteria to random pages from both sites. He’s been measuring about once a month since early March, and there are already some interesting data available.

I must say I’m a little uncertain about his statistical methodology – the size of his samples in particular seems a little on the small side, but it’s an interesting project nonetheless. I’m looking forward to seeing what results he comes up with in the long run.

On the Recent L.A. Times Article

Conservapedia got into the news again, this time through an article in today’s (June 19) L.A. Times by Stephanie Simon.

I’d say the article is about as can be expected, considering the limited resources the journalist probably had. The really good thing about the article in my opinion is that it rises a bit above the “Haha, look at the wacky conservatives and their article on Kangaroos” type of analysis that has characterized the typical press coverage of Conservapedia so far. There’s a bit of that, of course, but we also get an at least somewhat critical look at the people behind the site. Of particular interest is the mention of Dr. Lipson’s epic conflict with mr. Schlafly over breast cancer, which is referenced on page 2. It’s stories like these that we need to get out in the open.

Obviously, there’s a lot of things that the article doesn’t say. That’s unfortunate, since there’s much that I would have liked to see, such as the question of Conservapedia’s close ties to Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum and its role in their activities. A larger newspaper would have the necessary resources to delve into such questions that are well outside the scope of smaller operations like RationalWiki.com or this blog. Maybe that’ll come in the future, though.

The article is also noteworthy for featuring the first mention of RationalWiki.com in the mainstream media. Not bad for a small website that’s hardly a month old. Granted, the mention is not exactly flattering, but I guess that anything is better than nothing at this point.

Overall, a good, though not great article, which does cover some aspects of Conservapedia in greater detail than we have seen before in the media.

Column 14: “Don’t read a book, write a book!”

Seems like Conservapedia has a new motto!

A motto here, EnFrancaisSVP, is this: “don’t read a book, write a book.” Start with our entry here on the Theory of Relativity and improve it. Learn as your do so, and enter related topics to improve your knowledge and ours. Godspeed.–Aschlafly 22:43, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

I for one think that this is an excellent idea which I can fully support. Throughout my entire academic career, I have been plagued by the misconception that one would need to actually know something about a subject before writing about it. But I realize now that it is, in fact, possible – not to mention much more effective and less expensive in library fees – to simply start writing about a highly advanced subjects and wait for reams of knowledge to spring to life in your mind out of thin air through the Holy Ghost. I shall immediately begin writing that article about the behaviour of top/anti-top quark pairs in Higgs boson fields that I’ve always wanted to write. After that, I expect by tomorrow afternoon, maybe I’ll try squaring the circle with only a compass and a straightedge, just to relax.

It would be overly optimistic to think that there won’t be skeptics. We have to realize that this is rather a novel approach, and many people are quite set in their ways. After all, the great majority of scientists and academics were stupid enough to do their articles the old-fashioned ways, through massive amounts of research and stuff, so they can be expected to be rather biased against this new approach, irrational as it may seem. They are only human, and it is understandable that they’ll be reluctant to recognize that there is a much easier and better method than what they had to go through.

Fortunately, it is easy to refute these atheist nay-sayers. One needs only take a look at the excellent article essay about the “New Ordeal” to see the excellent results that the “Don’t Read, Write” approach can lead to. A fascinating, insightful, one dares even to say groundbreaking analysis of a complex socio-economic subject. Well done! Sure, there are a couple of references listed at the bottom, but we all know those are just there to humor the liberals. It seems quite obvious from the context that the author took the correct and obvious approach and never read those books. As one insightful conservapedian recently noted,

The two new “citations” have no apparent link to the article, any more than the first one does…

I think that you have to recognize that there’s some excellent work going on here. Incidentally, this can also be seen in the author’s bold and novel approach to the use of charts – both of those in the article are completely missing the Y-axis, and it would be hard to respond to that with anything but approval and respect. Unless, of course, you’re an atheist liberal nay-sayer, of course.

Keep up the good work, guys – and good night, and good luck.

En Passant: Arguments for a Recent Creation

You know what I find somewhat amusing? The people over at Conservapedia have this page that lists a number of arguments that support a recent creation, i.e. within the last 10,000 years or so. Quite extensive, too. It’s obviously very well-researched. Full of crackpot theories, sure, but at least they’re well-researched crackpot theories.

But what strikes me as a bit odd is that while as of this writing, they’ve spend two weeks on it and been able to find no less than 38 different “scientific” arguments, they haven’t gotten around to writing even one under ‘Theological reasons’. Pardon me, but shouldn’t that sort of be the foundation for the whole thing? Biblical literalism and all that? You know, if you need a little help here, I’m always ready to lend my research skills for a very reasonable consultancy fee.

Well, anyway – keep up the good work, guys.

Oh, and needless to say, RationalWiki has an extensive refutation of the whole thing (or most of it – work in progress). We’re seeing a frank and open exchange of opinions here, ladies and gentlemen, and it’s great to see!

Column 13: 1934, Revisited

Ladies and gentlemen. A day has come, a day which we all knew had to come sooner or later. The page Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse has been locked, along with its Talk page. As of today, there is no official place on Conservapedia where users can publicly complain about misbehaviour on the part of Conservapedia Sysops. (As an aside, it will come as no surprise to see Sysop:TK acting as the locking sysop.)
This was a logical move. The administrative history of Conservapedia shows – as has been extensively covered in previous Columns – a long and consistent trend towards favoring the rights of Sysops and diminishing the rights of common editors. High points in this was the the establishment of the almost farcial Student Panel, the gradual introduction of the Guidelines, and of course the completely extralegal Nights of the Blunt Knives on May 16th and 17th. The locking of this page is simply the logical conclusion of this development.

Actually – and this may come as a surprise – I think this locking is a good thing. More or less everyone who has spent just a little time with Conservapedia will know that the Sysop Abuse page has always been a complete scam. No user has ever gotten anything out of posting complaints on that page; except for a quick boot to the backside, of course. At least now, the management has stopped its futile attempts to delude the editors and is saying straight out in the open: “You have no rights.” This is, strange as it may seem, a move towards transparency. RobS makes it quite clear in a comment on RationalWiki:

Wow. You finally figured that out. I thought it couldn’t be more plain [2]

Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks

This a guideline. It has received approval from senior staff and Mr. Schlafly. It is an adjunct to the Commandments.

• Sysop’s and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked. RobS 12:00, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

In other words: Sysops are infallible and incapable of misbehaviour, and their word is law. Thus, there is no possible reason why anyone would need to complain about any one of them.

Actually, this subject has already been discussed in a Column. As has pointed out back in Column 9: On Legitimate Authority, authority on Conservapedia has never been based on the legal rules. Rather, it is based in a shared charisma that originates with the leader, mr. Schlafly. Charismatic authority is almost by definition opposed to impersonal rules and the rule of law, so this whole development is all too natural.

I would suggest that Conservapedia continue this development by removing the rules pages and those silly Guidelines, and instead simply introduce a new rules page that says: “The only rules on Conservapedia is the Will of the Leader and the words of the Sysops. Conform or leave.” At that point, few people will be in doubt of exactly what is going on and that, at least, must be called a victory for transparency.

Good night, and good luck.

Column 12 (Special Fun Fact edition): Mocking Christ

Did you know…

…that the people who mocked Christ during the Passion were liberals? It’s true!

Liberals over-rely on mockery, and have done as long ago as their mockery of Jesus Christ. It’s easy to try to mock what one does not understand. The extent to which liberals are so senselessly self-amused is itself amusing to watch. In many cases, the liberals did not even realize that what they were mocking (e.g., Northwest Octopus entry) was a parody of themselves.–Aschlafly 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT) [Columnist's emphasis]

This admittedly, is a somewhat controversial statement, and sure enough, it did lead User:HardDisc to question the underlying assumption (which, incidentally, earned him a perma-ban):

[...]The Pharisees and Sadducees were extremely conservative. So were the Romans – nationalists if you ever saw one. Is this — *gasp* — a conservative falsehood, or an example of conservative deceit? –HardDisc 19:49, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

This led to a brief discussion on just who were the good guys conservatives in 1st century AD Jewish society, which ended with the following statement by mr. Schlafly:

Very interesting, Fox. Thank you. I might add that there is no evidence of the Pharisees or Sadducees mocking Jesus, which was the premise of the complaint by HardDisc above.–Aschlafly 18:20, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Whoa. Full stop. As we all know, mr. Schlafly is a man who takes his Bible very seriously. And I mean very seriously. With that in mind, can it really be the case that he does not know of Luke 22:63-65?

63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
65 And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.

Or Luke 23:11?

11 And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

Not to mention Luke 23:35?

35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

Or Mark 15:29-32?

29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Admittedly, not all of these are clearly identified as Pharisees or Sadducees. However, given the prominent position of these groups in Jewish society at the time, some of them almost certainly are, especially rulers and chief priests mentioned in Luke 23:35 and Mark 15:31.

This raises a dilemma. Is it possible that biblical literalist like mr. Schlafly is unaware of key parts of the Gospels? Or is it possible that he would deliberately misrepresent Sacred Scripture in order to promote his own political agenda? Either seems unfathomable. This is a mystery to me.

However, all this still doesn’t really answer the question: Just who were the liberals who mocked Christ? Well, this whole Pharisees & Sadducees business has gotten me thoroughly confused, so let’s leave them out for the moment. Then the only people left would seem to be the Romans. Does that mean that the Romans were liberals?

Stop the press, I say.

EDIT: And good night, and good luck, of course.