# The Argument Clinic

**URL:** https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561
**Category:** Side Conversation
**Tags:** Comments
**Created:** [November 22, 2022, 2:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561 "2022-11-22T14:16:20Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 138

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)
#### Post date: [November 30, 2022, 10:03am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/138 "2022-11-30T10:03:27Z")

</div>

> [@Side comments on "Why do the scientist Christians here believe in God?"](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-why-do-the-scientist-christians-here-believe-in-god/15590/16):
>
> > [@Side comments on "Why do the scientist Christians here believe in God?"](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-why-do-the-scientist-christians-here-believe-in-god/15590/16):
> >
> > Wikipedia is rarely a “reasonably good indication” of anything. Most of its authors are amateurs and dilettantes, writing about subjects in which they have zero academic training.
> 
> @Tim remembers that Eddie has demonstrated _zero_ understanding of how Wikipedia _actually works_, or its strengths and weaknesses, so:
> 
> # ¯\_(ツ)\_/¯

He’s also demonstrated zero understanding of its contents, even for pages he claims familiarity with. I doubt I’ll ever forget this howler:

> [@Discussion of Big Science Today, by an Important Member of the National Association of Scholars](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/discussion-of-big-science-today-by-an-important-member-of-the-national-association-of-scholars/15226/174):
>
> > [@Discussion of Big Science Today, by an Important Member of the National Association of Scholars](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/discussion-of-big-science-today-by-an-important-member-of-the-national-association-of-scholars/15226/174):
> >
> > If Wikipedia would split its article into two, one on ID theory and one on the ID movement, and accurately characterize each, I would not have a problem.
> 
> So @Eddie, for all his ranting about the Wikipedia entry on ID, doesn’t know that Wikipedia _does_ have a separate page for the ID movement. Even though that’s literally the first thing on Wikipedia’s page on “[Intelligent Design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)”:
> 
> > _This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of [creationism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism). For generic arguments from “intelligent design”, see [Teleological argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument). For the movement, see [Intelligent design movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement)._

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561)._