| Author |
Message |
SparhafocPosts: 2658Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am
|
In conversation with someone, I went to search for 'methodological naturalism' to provide a web source.
The top result, the highlighted one, is from Conservapedia, an organisation hostile to methodological naturalism.
I've reported it to Google explaining that their highlighted result genetically contradicts Google, the internet, and computers, as well as all the other products of scientific inquiry, but I doubt that one person alone can impact the algorithms.
So how does one go about redressing this bullshit?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
|
| Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:22 am |
|
|
Dragan Glas  Posts: 3214Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland
Gender: Male
|
Greetings, I did a search myself, and it appeared at number 4 on the list - hereI generally use Naturalism.org myself. Kindest regards, James
 "The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason |
| Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:16 am |
|
|
SparhafocPosts: 2658Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am
|
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,
I did a search myself, and it appeared at number 4 on the list - here
I generally use Naturalism.org myself.
Kindest regards,
James How and why would an algorithm think that I would want Conservapedia as my tailored highlighted video? 
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
|
| Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:57 am |
|
|
ldmitruk Posts: 242Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:47 pmLocation: Edmonton, Alberta
Gender: Cake
|
Sparhafoc wrote:Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,
I did a search myself, and it appeared at number 4 on the list - here
I generally use Naturalism.org myself.
Kindest regards,
James
How and why would an algorithm think that I would want Conservapedia as my tailored highlighted video? You need to use the mind reading version of Google search. It's available at Google labs. 
|
| Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:52 pm |
|
|
he_who_is_nobody  Posts: 3507Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Gender: Male
|
About a year ago Answers in Genesis found a way to trick Google and have it say the earth was 6,000 years old when one asked Google for the age of the earth. Perhaps Conservapedia found away to do this as well. However, it coming up as fourth for Dragan Glas makes me think it has more to do with your previous search history and Google trying to tailer what it thinks you want based on your history. You have been looking at sources that dandan/leroy has provided after all.
|
| Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:27 pm |
 
|
|
SparhafocPosts: 2658Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am
|
he_who_is_nobody wrote:About a year ago Answers in Genesis found a way to trick Google and have it say the earth was 6,000 years old when one asked Google for the age of the earth. Perhaps Conservapedia found away to do this as well. However, it coming up as fourth for Dragan Glas makes me think it has more to do with your previous search history and Google trying to tailer what it thinks you want based on your history. You have been looking at sources that dandan/leroy has provided after all. Right, this is what I think has happened, fucking algorithms on the internet perpetuating anti-scientific bullshit echo-chambers. It pisses me off; this is the Disinformation Age.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
|
| Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:38 am |
|
|
WarK  Posts: 1228Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am
Gender: Tree
|
I tried https://duckduckgo.com- Wikipedia
- Rationalwiki
- Conservapedia
I sent them a feedback message.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
|
| Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:26 pm |
|
|
|
|
Conservapedia