Google and Science

[Darth Wong]

Want to know the problem with the Internet? Try doing a Google search on "Probability of Evolution". I just tried it, and look at the results:

1. Answers in Genesis (Rabid fundies)
2. Answers in Genesis (Rabid fundies)
3. NoDNC.com (Batshit insane Republitards)
4. TalkOrigins.org (Scientists)
5. johnankerberg.org (Another fundie)
6. DHBailey.Com (National Centre for Science Education)
7. Creationtheory.Org (my site)
8. Worldandi.com (A science and philosophy site)
9. Frank Steiger's Home Page (Secular humanist)
10. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (Skeptics)

Will you look at that? The creationist bullshit is right at the top, and all of the science links are below them. This, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the Internet.

[Simmon]

Meaning a person with an average attention span would get the fundie prespective?

Does anyone know how Google decides what goes on top in searches?

[Archaic`]

It boils down to quantity of links, and the quality of the links. ie. How many are nothing pages, and how many are from sites of significant note (which themselves are linked to by large numbers of sites which are highly linked to, and so on, etc, etc).

Sadly doesn't surprise me that there's more sites out there with a fundy perspective, and that they're all bumping their search rankings be being highly interlinked.

[Kanastrous]

I actually hear 'but it's on the internet, so it must be reliable' more and mroe often, all the time...

[Stark]

And it's stunted twin, 'I read this on wikipedia...'

[Zablorg]

I find wikipedia a good source of brief definitions, but there are people who consider themselves masters of the subject just by skimming through it.

I think the main problem is all these rabid fundie sites have sprawled across their sites the word "probability". Probability of this and that happening. They tend to harp on a bit on the word probability, because it's a word that is very convenient. The scientific sites would more focus on reviewing the actual probability, rather than filling an entire page with the word.

[kinnison]

Zablorg, another take on your post:

The probability of your being here and alive is vanishingly small. Untold millions of generations of forebears had to survive long enough to reproduce; not only that, but mutate in just the right way, and pass on the particular germ cell, to produce the next "step in the chain". And all the while, and particularly when your ancestors had become human, they had to "get the urge" at the right time - if even your parents had had a phone call that made them go to bed five minutes later, there might be someone there but it wouldn't be you.

Add to that the miniscule probability that collisions in the Asteroid Belt resulted in something going in just the right direction at the right speed to hit Chixculub at the right time to kill all the dinosaurs and make room for the mammals, and the probability becomes even more ridiculous.

But, after all that, you are here, and posting on this forum. The same ludicrously unlikely chain of improbabilities lies behind every single living organism on Earth, including all its people, but they are still all here too. How to you reconcile the astronomical unlikeliness and the fact that we are all nevertheless here? Simple. We are here to discuss it, and if we weren't we would be unable to discuss the matter.

On a slightly less astronomical scale, imagine that you are walking past a plate glass window when a bomb goes off inside. You are the only one walking past to survive, having miraculously been missed by all the shrapnel, and wonder why. But the real answer is that asking the question implies being there to ask it, and therefore the question is meaningless.

[Zablorg]

Ok, what the fuck...

I am not debating the philosiphical implications of existence, fucktard. All I'm saying is the word probability is going to be quite a lot more frequent in the fundie websites.

[Darth Servo]

I actually hear 'but it's on the internet, so it must be reliable' more and mroe often, all the time...

Yet when you provide a link to the your side when debating fucktards, they suddenly realize how "flawed" the internet is.

[Darth Wong]

According to Google, there are 1370 sites out there which link to www.creationtheory.org and yet I'm still only ranked seventh. I can only imagine how many sites link to talkorigins.org, and yet it's still only ranked fourth. This really gives you an idea of how many fucktards out there are linking to answersingenesis and that nodnc Republitard site. It's interesting that icr.org is nowhere near the top of the list; answersingenesis is much more radical than icr, and far less reasonable (if "reasonable" is a word that you can apply to fundies at all).

[Darth Servo]

What I want to know is why does AIG get hit twice? Does the search engine return two different subpages?

[Nephtys]

You can manipulate google pretty noticibly. At least, last I checked. Their algorithms for generating popularity could be artificially blown up by a few creative tricks with self-linking and such.

[Archaic`]

The algorithms are a little more robust now, but yes, they're still possible to deceive. Having said that...I'm cynical enough to think that these results could be achieved by legitimate links.

[wautd]

Will you look at that? The creationist bullshit is right at the top, and all of the science links are below them. This, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the Internet.

You can make the same point about how horoscopes get more attention in mainstream newspapers than science. Most people like to hear bullshit

[Dooey Jo]

According to Google, there are 1370 sites out there which link to www.creationtheory.org and yet I'm still only ranked seventh. I can only imagine how many sites link to talkorigins.org, and yet it's still only ranked fourth. This really gives you an idea of how many fucktards out there are linking to answersingenesis and that nodnc Republitard site. It's interesting that icr.org is nowhere near the top of the list; answersingenesis is much more radical than icr, and far less reasonable (if "reasonable" is a word that you can apply to fundies at all).

It's probably because both the fundies and the others link to AIG and such places. Fundies do it because they think it's a good page, and the others do it because they show what's wrong with it, or whatever. All those moron republitard blogs probably doesn't help either.

[kinnison]

Zablog, that's the point, isn't it? The very notion that the existence of humanity, or any individual human, is overwhelmingly improbable is completely meaningless because the fact that the question is being discussed means that we are here to discuss it, and if the long succession of lottery wins hadn't come off we wouldn't be thinking about it. Which neatly removes one of the fundies' arguments, the one of improbability.

[Feil]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the fundies are the ones always harping about probability even though the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is about natural selection, which has very little to do with probability, so when Google gives you a best match search, its mindless algorithm picks up the best matches for the search argument you entered? Jesus Christ, people. A google search for just plain "evolution" gives a bunch of university websites, wikipedia, and sites that aren't about scientific evolution. "Evidence for evolution" yields nine of the top ten legitimate scientific pages, with the only creationist page ranked ninth.

[Kanastrous]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the fundies are the ones always harping about probability even though the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is about natural selection, which has very little to do with probability,

Isn't there a probabilistic mechanism at work, in the sense that variations that increase the probability of survival and reproduction for a group with a specific trait, can increase the prevalence of that trait, through Natural Selection?

Or am I bobbling the concept, here?

[Admiral Valdemar]

This, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the species.

Fixed for you. Much as I adore and hate the Internet for what it enables me to find and what others seem to find (and believe), the problem is inherent with humanity. It's why we invented religion in the first place and no matter how good our IT, you won't eradicate the stupid.

That's what Zyklon B is for. But I think that's against the law.

[CaptJodan]

Will you look at that? The creationist bullshit is right at the top, and all of the science links are below them. This, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the Internet.

And then you go to googlescholar and everything makes sense again. Too bad most people won't. I agree with Valdemar, there are a hell of enough search engines that deal with real science. The problem is with the morons who make tons of hits on creationism websites.

[Ted C]

According to Google, there are 1370 sites out there which link to www.creationtheory.org and yet I'm still only ranked seventh. I can only imagine how many sites link to talkorigins.org, and yet it's still only ranked fourth. This really gives you an idea of how many fucktards out there are linking to answersingenesis and that nodnc Republitard site.

Don't forget all the scientists, skeptics, etc. who link to AIG pages when they refute them. People who argue against insanity like AIG increase may increase its Google score substantially.

[Darth Wong]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the fundies are the ones always harping about probability even though the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is about natural selection, which has very little to do with probability, so when Google gives you a best match search, its mindless algorithm picks up the best matches for the search argument you entered?

Its algorithm is not "mindless"; it gives you an idea of how popular something is on the Internet. That's exactly what bothers me.

Jesus Christ, people. A google search for just plain "evolution" gives a bunch of university websites, wikipedia, and sites that aren't about scientific evolution. "Evidence for evolution" yields nine of the top ten legitimate scientific pages, with the only creationist page ranked ninth.

Well duh, "evidence for evolution" is a search phrase with an obviously pro-evolution slant, so the fence-sitters who go casually researching evolution vs creation on Google won't use it. The same goes for "evolution"; the fence-sitters who try to "research" the "controversy" won't use that search term. Try using the most obvious search term: "evolution vs creation". Bingo, the top search result is another fundie site.

[Zablorg]

Zablog, that's the point, isn't it? The very notion that the existence of humanity, or any individual human, is overwhelmingly improbable is completely meaningless because the fact that the question is being discussed means that we are here to discuss it, and if the long succession of lottery wins hadn't come off we wouldn't be thinking about it. Which neatly removes one of the fundies' arguments, the one of improbability.

You are bat fuck insane. The fundies are trying to exaggerate the improbability of this and that, not to emphisize the incredibility that it was pulled off, but to make it seem like it was impossible.

Furthurmore, you can't just verify a theory simply by proving that it's end results exist, moron. In the case of theories regarding the past, the entire point is not to prove that the end result does exist, but to explain why is exists.

[Kanastrous]

The problem lies in defining us an an end-product, and then backfilling by harping on all the things that 'had to go just right' for us to emerge as an end-product.

But we aren't an end product, so the idea that every step towards our present form was dictated by what that form has turned out to be, is worse than useless.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the species.

Fixed for you. Much as I adore and hate the Internet for what it enables me to find and what others seem to find (and believe), the problem is inherent with humanity. It's why we invented religion in the first place and no matter how good our IT, you won't eradicate the stupid.

That's what Zyklon B is for. But I think that's against the law.

You're seriously fucked up if you thought that was funny or profound. Jesus, is this what passes for meaningful posts and legitimate attention? Zyklon B?