
Ask HN: Why are RationalWiki articles always high up in Google search results? - StandardFuture
RationalWiki admits to their political-bias and outright incompetence in maintaining a purely objective stance on topics:<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;rationalwiki.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Essay:I_thought_this_was_supposed_to_be_RATIONALWiki<p>So, why do they seemingly always show up high in Google search results?
======
eesmith
I was thinking to write along the lines of "there is no purely objective
stance on topics".

But I see the page you linked to already covers that, in spades.

What searches are you doing to end up there? It rarely shows up in my
searches, unless I'm searching for specific hot-button topics.

And are their answers incompetent?

~~~
StandardFuture
> there is no purely objective stance on topics

This is an objectively wrong statement. The existence of Mathematics is a
negation of this statement in its entirety. Observations are purely objective.
Measurements are purely objective.

> Are their answers incompetent?

Do you consider purposely substituting biased views in place of objective
observation a form of incompetence? I don't. I consider it a form of
intellectual dishonesty. That is far worse.

~~~
eesmith
Then let's make it practical.

Name one news source which you consider to have "a purely objective stance on
topics".

Because I can't think of a single one.

And I would rather have one whose biases are worn on the sleeve, than shrouded
in a false disguise of neutral objectivity.

Even if we restrict ourselves to mathematics, consider Georg Cantor, who
demonstrated the existences of multiple types of infinities. Quoting
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor)
:

] Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers was originally regarded as so
counter-intuitive – even shocking – that it encountered resistance from
mathematical contemporaries such as Leopold Kronecker and Henri Poincaré and
later from Hermann Weyl and L. E. J. Brouwer, while Ludwig Wittgenstein raised
philosophical objections. Cantor, a devout Lutheran, believed the theory had
been communicated to him by God. Some Christian theologians (particularly neo-
Scholastics) saw Cantor's work as a challenge to the uniqueness of the
absolute infinity in the nature of God – on one occasion equating the theory
of transfinite numbers with pantheism – a proposition that Cantor vigorously
rejected.

] The objections to Cantor's work were occasionally fierce: Leopold
Kronecker's public opposition and personal attacks included describing Cantor
as a "scientific charlatan", a "renegade" and a "corrupter of youth". ....
Writing decades after Cantor's death, Wittgenstein lamented that mathematics
is "ridden through and through with the pernicious idioms of set theory",
which he dismissed as "utter nonsense" that is "laughable" and "wrong".

Which of these observations were purely objective, and in the 1800s, how would
you be able to tell?

> in place of objective observation

The choice of what to observe and what to report is based on views of what is
important, so therefore subject to subjective bias. You cannot have one
without the other.

~~~
StandardFuture
> Because I can't think of a single one.

This is beyond and silly and pedantic. We are all supposed to rely on what YOU
can and cannot think of?

If you really want some mathematical objectivity then maybe go read through
Serge Lang's Algebra and come back with me on which parts you found to be
subjective. You might find some!

> Which of these observations were purely objective?

Sigh ... so you have an anecdote of something that at a particular point in
time was unproven and conjectured. That status allowed others to make
subjective claims against it. And you are using this to try to argue that
everything at all times is never objective? That is silly. Can you really not
see the flaw in your logic here? The clue word was: anecdote.

> The choice of what to observe and what to report

I never made this differentiation anywhere in my comment. I pointed at blatant
intellectual dishonesty which is stating things either false or in a fashion
that might provide a more naive reader with a false pretense or to perhaps
make something concrete appear ambiguous, etc.

You are trying to restrict all possible forms of intellectual dishonesty to
reporting bias. You are doing this is either out of ignorance or intellectual
dishonesty. I am guessing the latter as you seem to have no moral contention
with it.

And yes, you can have things that are not subject to bias. Dropping an apple
from a window always causes the apple to fall towards the earth and not away
from it.

This conversation is pointless because you are either a troll or a supremely
dishonest individual.

~~~
eesmith
You wrote: "We are all supposed to rely on what YOU can and cannot think of?"

No, of course not. I asked for your help in identifying "a purely objective
stance on topics" precisely because I am limited in my understanding.

I am expressing my ignorance. You imply such sources do exist, so please
educate me.

You wrote: "I pointed at blatant intellectual dishonesty which is stating
things either false or in a fashion that might provide a more naive reader
with a false pretense or to perhaps make something concrete appear ambiguous,
etc."

Where did you point that out? You implied it, but have yet to demonstrate a
concrete example.

> "you are either a troll or a supremely dishonest individual"

While you have yet to take any of my questions seriously.

1) "What searches are you doing to end up there?".

To clarify, among other things, RationalWiki contains summaries of activities
by people that leftists sometimes categorize as "fascist", "fascist adjacent"
or "white supremacist." It is one of the few sources which do that. So if you
search for those names, then it's likely you'll come to a RationalWiki page.

2) "And are their answers incompetent?"

To clarify, I used "incompetent" because your top-level comment used
"incompetence." I wanted some examples of answers which were demonstrably
wrong, and some indication that they were wrong more often than other sources
that Google might use, and perhaps some indication that their biases were the
reason for being wrong.

You wrote "Dropping an apple from a window always causes the apple to fall
towards the earth and not away from it."

But dropping a helium-filled balloon does not.

So if you are news source, and _only_ talk about falling apples and never
about helium-filled balloons floating away, you are reporting the facts yet
resulting in biased reporting.

If your news show often reports about fraud in the welfare system, and never
covers wage theft, then it too is _both factual and biased._

