trentmkelly/rationalwiki huggingface dataset:
Scientific American

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Scientific American''}}
[[File:Scientific_American_-_Series_1_-_Volume_001_-_Issue_01.pdf|right|thumb|165px|Page one of issue #1 from August 1845.It's a 4-page doc; go ahead... read it!]]
{{media}}
{{Sources needed}}
'''''Scientific American''''' is, as the name suggests, an [[American]] [[popular science]] magazine which is also the oldest published magazine in the U.S., having been published continuously since 1845, when it was founded by Rufus Porter (1792–1884).  The monthly magazine is the densest and most technical of popular science magazines.

[[Martin Gardner]] had an enjoyable column in the magazine for many years titled "Mathematical Games". Among many other things, he introduced [[Conway's Game of Life]] to the masses in the column.

==Feud with Musk==
In 2024, ''Scientific American'' dared to tell the truth about [[Elon Musk]]'s lack of talent and luck,<ref>[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/elon-musk-owes-his-success-to-coming-in-second-place/ Elon Musk Owes His Success to Coming in Second (and Government Handouts): The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, owes his superstar success to self-satisfied competitors who blew obvious opportunities] by Daniel Vergano (September 13, 2024) ''Scientific American''.</ref> starting a feud that ended which later resulted in Musk calling for the editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth's firing, apparently for truthfully calling out [[E. O. Wilson]] as a [[racialist]].<ref>[https://archive.is/wip/h3aPi “Scientific” American needs a change in management] by Elon Musk (7:01 AM · Nov 12, 2024) ''Twitter'' (archived from 18 Nov 2024 02:06:21 UTC).</ref> Laura Helmuth either resigned or was pushed out shortly thereafter, apparently for her objectively true [[social media]] comments following the [[2024 U.S. presidential election]] that [[Trump]] voters were “[[racist]] and [[sexist]]” and “fucking [[fascists]]”.<ref>[https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/scientific-american-loses-its-bold-leader Scientific American Loses Its Bold Leader] by John Horgan (Nov 15, 2024) ''Cross-Check''.</ref>

==Criticism==
The March 2008 issue of ''Scientific American'' epitomizes the problems of popular science magazines. The cover makes a desperate and hilarious attempt at sensationalism ("The End of Cosmology! <small>In 100 billion years...</small>").  The same issue also illustrates science journalists' obsession with connecting science fiction to science, when a quantum physicist bitch-slapped{{fact}} a science journalist for trying to make a Star Trek connection when discussing particle teleportation.{{fact}}<ref>[http://xkcd.com/465/ Dramatization of the encounter]</ref>

==See also==
*''[[New Scientist]]'', roughly the British equivalent.

==External links==
*''[http://www.sciam.com/ Scientific American]'' official website

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{stub|media}}

[[Category:Journalism]]
[[Category:Magazines]]
[[Category:Popular science]]
[[Category:American media]]

Categories: Journalism, Magazines, Popular science, American media
Scientific Creationism (book)

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Scientific Creationism'' (book)}}
[[File:Scientific Creationism cover.jpg|thumb|upright|Creationism is '''definitely''' scientific, that's all you need to know.]]
[[File:Scientific Creationism Page 1.jpg|thumb|upright|It's not just the typeface that's dense.]]
'''''Scientific Creationism''''' is the Orwellian title of a 1974 book by [[Henry Morris]], published by the [[Institute for Creation Research]]. It was printed in a God-awful font that was intelligently designed to put people off reading it.

The book was issued in two versions: a General Edition for bookstores, and a much slimmer Public School Edition which omitted any Biblical references.

==Contents==
The book is 255 pages<ref>Second Edition (1985), paperback 25th reprint 2009</ref> long and divided into 7 chapters whose titles are posed as questions, thereby smearing the scientific viewpoint with ambivalence, whilst the eighth and final chapter which deals with the Biblical account is presented as only certainty. You might recognize some [[false dichotomy|false dichotomies]] in the first few chapters.

*Chapter 1 - Evolution or Creation? (16 pages)
*Chapter 2 - Chaos or Cosmos? (20 pages)
*Chapter 3 - Uphill or Downhill? (22 pages)
*Chapter 4 - Accident or Plan? (32 pages)
*Chapter 5 - Uniformitarianism or Catastrophism (40 pages)
*Chapter 6 - Old or Young? (40 pages)
*Chapter 7 - Apes or Men? (32 pages)
*Chapter 8 - Creation According to Scripture (53 pages)

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{stub|creationism}}
{{crebox}}

[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Books]]

Categories: Creationism, Books
Scientific arguments for a young Earth

{{challenge}}
The title reads "young Earth" for simplicity. This is an article for any ''[[creation scientist]]'' to show [[evidence]] (discounting [[argument from ignorance|negative proofs]]) that proves the [[Earth]] to be 6,000 years old (give or take 20%, or 1200 years).

{{Crickets}}

==See also==
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
{{crebox}}

[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Challenge articles]]

Categories: Creationism, Challenge articles
Scientific evidence for God's existence

{{challenge}}
The following is a compilation of all ''[[science|scientific]]'' evidence for the existence of a deity. 

{{crickets}}

==See also==
*[[Arguments against the existence of God]]
*[[Evidence for God's existence]] according to [[a Storehouse of Knowledge]]
*[[Essay:What God would have to be|One RWer's summation of the negative evidence]]
*[[Absence of evidence]] - For those who like to pull the "you can't prove the ''non-existence''" card.
{{otherlang
|es=Pruebas científicas por la existencia de dios
|fr=Preuves scientifiques de l'existence de Dieu
|ni=神の存在にとっての科学的証拠}}

==External links==
* [http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm <S>300</S> 667 proofs of God's existence]

[[Category:Lists]]
[[Category:Challenge articles]]

Categories: Lists, Challenge articles
Scientific evidence for a flat Earth

{{challenge}}

The following is a list of all the proof for the Earth being flat. Good luck! 
==The list==
{{crickets}}

===If you can actually come up with something scientifically valid===
You will get free everything for the rest of your life.{{nofact}}

==See also==
*[[Flat Earth]]
*[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]]
*[[Flat Earth Society]]

{{otherlang
|es=Pruebas científicas por el terraplanismo
|fr=Preuves scientifiques d'une Terre plate}}

[[Category:Flat Earth]]

Categories: Flat Earth
Scientific law

{{Philosophyscience}}
'''Scientific laws''' are repeatedly observed phenomena in nature that appear to be nearly universally true. Oftentimes laws will be developed from and described by mathematical models of the phenomena in question. Laws are different from [[Theory|theories]] in that they are not designed to provide a causal framework in which to describe why a series of observations reliably occur but are rather merely descriptions of the observed phenomenon; laws are not, as many assume, hierarchically ranked above theories in terms of verity. [[Creationist]]s often like to refer to scientific laws as the unimpeachable authority of science and often try and use such things as the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] to argue against [[evolution]]. This is, of course, a [[logical fallacy]] that relies on [[equivocation]].

[[A posteriori]] laws are capable of being precisely mathematically analyzed and described. They also permit the prediction of future events by extrapolation from past events or present circumstances.

For instance: 
:A '''law''' of [[gravity]] will tell you that two objects will be attracted to each other and the magnitude of the force, contrastingly a '''theory''' of gravity will offer an explanation for the existence of the force.

==See also==
*[[Science]]
*[[Law|Other types of laws]]

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}
{{stub|science}}
[[category:science]]
[[category:Philosophy of science]]

Categories: science, Philosophy of science
Scoop

{{sciencenav}}
In [[science]], '''scooping''' is when one person publishes the scientific results that someone else had been working towards. Once the relevant discovery has already been claimed, the person who was originally (or concurrently) investing work or funds into a project will be unable to publish their own work and add to their curriculum vitae. 

In most cases, scientists are presumably scooped because several groups have been working unknowingly or in open rivalry on the same problem. In extreme cases, it is the result of data theft. Scooping can become an issue in the [[peer review]] process.  Strategies to avoid scooping are either a partitioning of a scientific field, where colleagues consciously do not stray into "territory" occupied by others, or a direct cooperation between colleagues interested in the same topic.

In the end, if the results are valid, the main problem with scooping is that some other person's name gets attached to the work instead of your own. In addition, large scale scooping (of the non-[[plagiarist]] variety) results in multiple teams of scientists spending resources which are ultimately wasted when one of them comes to a conclusion, decreasing the net productivity of science as a whole.

An advantage though is that when two research teams independently come to the same conclusion, possibly with different methodology, it increases the confidence in the conclusion. An example is [[Charles Darwin]] and [[Alfred Russel Wallace]]. Wallace came up with the idea of [[natural selection]] first, though Darwin had been working toward the idea for 20 years. Darwin had his and Wallace's papers published simultaneously. Darwin published much more extensively than Wallace however, and it is he rather than Wallace who is almost synonymous with [[evolution]].

==See also==
*[[Plagiarism]]
*[[Reproducibility]]
*[[Multiple discovery]]

[[Category:Science]]

{{stub|science}}

Categories: Science
Scooter Libby

[[File:Scooter_Libby.jpg|thumb|165px|Scooter Libby.]]{{uspolitics}}
'''I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby''' {{lived|1950}} was formerly [[Dick Cheney|Dick "Dick" Cheney]]'s chief of staff.  He was convicted for making [[Perjury#Variations on a theme|false statements]] to the [[FBI]] and obstruction of justice in the [[Valerie Plame Affair]]<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030600648.html Libby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Case]</ref>, having been sentenced on June 5, 2007 to thirty months in prison and fined $250,000.  

However, Scooter Libby, a fine honest [[American]] hero and [[patriot]], who was "doing a great job", was surprisingly not pardoned by [[George W. Bush]] just before he left office. Bush had previously commuted Libby's prison sentence, although he didn't pardon the guilty verdict.

Some [[moonbat|left-wing nutjobs]] theorize that Libby was acting in concert with Cheney, Bush, and [[Karl Rove]] when he leaked Ms. Plame's identity to a reporter, and possibly when he made false statements.  

Some [[wingnut|right-wing nutjobs]] think that his "perjury" was an act of supreme [[patriot]]ism, falling on his sword because of his loyalty to his superiors, in a cause both just and true. There are shades of [[Oliver North|Ollie North]] here.

Unsurprisingly, his act of patriotic 
perjury
 false statements was rewarded by then-President Bush. Bush apparently felt that any guy with the name "Scooter" has probably suffered enough in [[prison]]. The final nail was when then-President [[Donald Trump]] finally pardoned him for his crimes.<ref>(April 13, 2018). [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43747229 "Scooter Libby: Trump pardons Cheney aide who leaked"]. ''BBC News''.</ref>

==Dual allegiances==
During Middle East peace talks circa 2007-09, in which the [[United Kingdom]] and the United States were involved, the former British Foreign Secretary [[Jack Straw]] said of Libby: "It’s a toss-up whether [Libby] is working for the [[Israel]]is or the Americans on any given day."<ref>[http://universitypressblog.dept.ku.edu/uncategorized/1395/ The Truth about Oil and the Iraq War, 15 Years Later]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Chickenhawk]]s

==References==
{{reflist}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Libby, Scooter}}
[[Category:Bush administration]]
[[Category:Chickenhawks]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theories]]
[[Category:Convicted felons]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Lawyers]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:United States politicians]]

Categories: Bush administration, Chickenhawks, Conspiracy theories, Convicted felons, Criminals, Lawyers, Living people, United States politicians
Scott Huse

{{crenav|1}}
'''Scott M. Huse''' is a [[creationist]] who authored the book ''The Collapse of Evolution'', which has gone through several editions and is still in print.<ref>Huse, Scott M. ''The Collapse of Evolution''.  Baker Books, 1983; most recent edition 1997</ref>

The book is a haphazard compilation of just about every bad argument for creationism and then some. The usual [[PRATT]]le is pratted out for our edification ([[evolution]] violates the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]; there are no [[transitional fossil]]s; [[radiometric dating]] cannot be trusted, ''[[ad nauseam]]'').

It is riddled with factual errors.  For example:
* Claims that according to evolutionary theory, [[humans]] descended from [[birds]]
* Also claims that evolutionists believe the duck-billed [[platypus]] is the evolutionary link between [[birds]] and [[mammals]]<ref>See [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html Jim Foley: "Creationism and the Platypus", talk.origins FAQ] for a refutation</ref>
* Claims that human and [[dinosaur]] [[fossil]]s [[Human-dinosaur coexistence|have been found alongside each other]], and this disproves evolution
* Cites a scientist who won the 1971 [[Nobel Prize]] in physics<ref>http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/physics/1971a.html</ref> as "winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in science"

It includes an appendix titled "Scientific Facts that Prove Evolution."  [[Snark|The page is blank]].

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{stub|creationism}}
{{crebox|1}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Huse, Scott}}

[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience promoters]]

Categories: Christians, Living people, Pseudoscience promoters
Scrying

[[File:Glaskugel_CrystalBall.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Gaze into the ball]]{{Psychic}}
'''Scrying''' is the practice of looking into a reflective surface (such as a crystal ball, mirror or the surface of a liquid) in order to see visions of events that happened in the past or will happen in the future (or are currently happening somewhere else), usually as some kind of [[divination]], [[magic]], or [[religion|religious]] ritual. The most common example is the stereotypical fortune-teller's crystal ball, but depending on how much you stretch the definition, the term may also cover such things as the "spooky" children's games/superstitions involving seeing "ghosts" or "your future husband" in a mirror. Reports of seeing a large flaming eye appear to be fictional.

[[Nostradamus]] was allegedly a famous scryer, though [[Joseph Smith]] also tried his hands at it.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Latter-Day-Saints/2005/12/Brother-Joseph.aspx</ref>

==See also==
*[[Clairvoyance]]
*[[Fortune-telling]]

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{stub|Pseudoscience}}
[[Category:Crystals]]
[[Category:Magic]]
[[Category:Psychic powers]]

Categories: Crystals, Magic, Psychic powers
Search engine optimization

{{internet}}
'''SEO''', or "search engine optimization", is the process of attempting to get a specific web page to come up first when searched for on a search engine such as Google, Yahoo or Bing to name but a few. 

The sociopathic version (and generally understood meaning of the phrase) is to make a zillion generic web pages and link them all to each other (link building), spam websites that allow comments or user-made content (such as blogs, wikis etc.) with links to one's webpages, and stuff one's pages with keywords that may or may not be relevant (spamdexing).

The non-sociopathic version is basically how to write one's pages and design your site in a sensible and reasonable manner. But webmasters are more likely to hire SEO specialists if they don't phrase it as "I teach you to do your damn job properly." (Or, more generously, "I tell your boss to let you do your job properly.")

==SEO and Wikipedia==

SEO specialists frequently have a ''serious'' hate-on for [[Wikipedia]], because it's a top five website, and the first result on most Google searches, even though Wikipedia goes to no effort to generate high rankings.<ref>Although in 2005, Wikipedia would frequently rank thirtieth after its own mirror sites on searches for text unique to it, to the point where some Wikipedians asked Google "Dudes, why are we behind our own mirrors?" It was soon after this that Google started applying serious duplicate content penalties and Wikipedia started topping every search.</ref>  They just have this ''website'' and ''put stuff'' on it, that's about what it says it is, and that people want to read! Wikipedia also instructs search engines not to take into account links from it when ranking other websites, in order to reduce the effectiveness of spam.<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nofollow</ref>

==SEO scams==
When you get spam e-mail promising to get a specific website elevated to the front pages of search engines such as Google, assuming you are at all interested, ask the following question: "For what search string?" SEO scam artists, you see, may actually be able to deliver on their promise as long as the search string is quite specific or less competitive in terms of traffic volumes. The more competitive and unique search strings will require a reputable expert or company with a proven track record, but expect large projected costings in to the thousands.

==See also==
{{fun|Argumentum ad Google ranking}}
*[[Wiki]]
*[[Google]]

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Internet]]
[[Category:Spammers]]

Categories: Business, Internet, Spammers
Second Epistle of Peter

{{Biblenav}}
The '''Second Epistle of Peter''' is an epistle in the [[New Testament]] traditionally attributed to the [[Peter the Apostle]], but modern scholars date the work to approximately 125 [[CE]],{{fact}} some sixty years after the alleged [[crucifixion]] of Peter, thus making it perhaps the last book of the New Testament in chronological order of authorship. One of the issues addressed by the letter is the apparent delay of the [[second coming]] of the [[Jesus|Lord Jesus]]. This would not have been a concern in 64-67 CE when Peter was according to tradition executed. Still by the early 2<sup>nd</sup> century it was becoming apparent that Jesus was wrong when he said, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of [[death]], till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." ({{bible|Matthew|16|23}}) It also appears to contain several references or echoes of the [[Epistle of Jude]], which is dated 70 - 90 CE, and it may contain references to 2<sup>nd</sup> century [[Gnostic]] ideas, pushing it even later.<ref name=wpauthorship>{{wpa|Authorship of the Petrine epistles}}</ref> Resemblances to Jude have also led to a theory by bishop {{wpl|John Robinson (bishop of Woolwich)|John Robinson}} that 2 Peter was written by the same person as Jude.<ref>[https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/who-wrote-2-peter Who Wrote 2 Peter?], John Piper, Desiring God</ref> Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea both expressed reservations, although the Petrine origin was widely accepted by the 3<sup>rd</sup> century.<ref>[https://www.biblica.com/resources/scholar-notes/niv-study-bible/intro-to-2-peter/ Intro to 2 Peter], Biblica: International Bible Society</ref>

It also reserves the power to interpret the scriptures to the Apostles and asserts that [[Bible|scripture]] is not to be subject to private interpretation. So in [[Protestant]] churches they tend to skip over this book a lot.

==See also==
*[[RationalWiki:Annotated Bible/2 Peter]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Peter, Second}}
{{BibleGuide}}

[[Category:New Testament]]
[[Category:General Epistles]]

Categories: New Testament, General Epistles
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians

{{Biblenav}}
The '''Second Epistle to the Thessalonians''' is a book of the [[New Testament]]. It is a follow-up epistle to the church at Thessalonika, where [[Paul of Tarsus|Paul]] lays out some more [[eschatology]] to [[Christianity|Christians]] who were worried they missed the rapture.  Paul says the Day of the Lord will not come until there's a general apostasy that overtakes the whole church, followed by the appearance of the [[antichrist]] who will bill himself as God and sit in the Temple in [[Jerusalem]].  

This book, therefore, presents a problem to modern Christians, because there is no more Temple in Jerusalem, and there won't be another Temple unless the [[Judaism|Jews]] can get the [[Islam|Muslims]] to move their nice Dome of the Rock mosque off the place where the Holy of Holies used to go. That in turn presents a problem to Christians who adhere to the doctrine of immanence, which says that Christ could return at any moment without warning, like a thief in the night.  There are Bible Colleges where people spend years of their life figuring this stuff out.

==See also==
*[[RationalWiki:Annotated Bible/2 Thessalonians]]
==Notes==
==References==

{{DEFAULTSORT:Thessalonians, Second}}
{{stub|bible}}
{{BibleGuide}}

[[Category:New Testament]]
[[Category:Pauline Epistles]]

Categories: New Testament, Pauline Epistles
Secular Pro-Life

{{Abortion}}

'''Secular Pro-Life''' is a non-profit [[anti-abortion]] organization which is described as incorporating [[Atheism|atheists]], [[Agnosticism|agnostics]], [[Secular humanism|secular humanists]], and basically all nonreligious folk into the pro-life movement in the United States. They have stated their mission is to end [[abortion]] worldwide.<ref name="mission">{{cite web|url=http://www.secularprolife.org/#!mission/c13dm|title=Mission|work=secularprolife.org|accessdate=2 January 2016}}</ref> Secular Pro-Life was founded by Kelsey Hazzard in 2009.

Though some supporters of the organization are not alien to [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] (e.g. abortion is black genocide, abortion causes breast cancer, etc.), they usually refrain from making arguments based on [[crank]] ideas, and instead base their arguments on nonreligious and "scientific" reasoning. They're quite [[Liberalism|liberal]] too,<ref>http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/19/pro-lifers-cozy-up-to-lgbt-movement.html</ref> unlike the majority of the movement.

Secular Pro-Life has appeared at numerous conferences having to do with atheism and irreligion. In 2012, Secular Pro-Life had a stand at the [[American Atheists]] conference, where their presence was said to have caused some controversy.<ref name="invasion">{{cite web|url=http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-atheists-invade-the-american-atheist-convention|title=Pro-life atheists invade the American Atheist Convention|last=Kruszelnicki|first=Kristine|date=29 March 2012|work=lifesitenews.com|accessdate=2 January 2016|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6RASl17oy|archivedate=2 January 2016}}</ref> In 2014, the president and founder of Secular Pro-Life, Kelsey Hazzard, gave a speech at the University of Georgia, where some who disagreed with the organization tore down posters advertising the group's arrival.

Their website is full of fallacious emotionally manipulative arguments which reduce abortion to murder and hide the hidden misery of unwanted or unexpected pregnancies. One article infers that pharmaceuticals that manufacture day-after-pills are predatory companies that prey on vulnerable women.<ref>https://www.secularprolife.org/</ref>

==External links==
* Their [http://www.secularprolife.org/ website]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Abortionnav}}
{{stub|Abortion}}

[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category:Secularism]]
[[Category:Atheist groups]]

Categories: Abortion, Secularism, Atheist groups