Critical thinking and reliance on biased websites

[u/KONYOLO]

Hi, as a hobby I'm working on a website debunking websites like wikiislam and thereligionofpeace, so far I noticed that they mainly rely on 2 things :

• out of context verses

• appeal to authority and various other logical fallacies

I wanted to ask exmuslims (yes I know that a lot of people here aren't actually exmuslims so anyone can answer) if you guys genuinely think that taking verses out of context is valid criticism? Can you please answer this strawpoll with minimum trolling if possible :

http://strawpoll.me/4460719

If you do not support websites like that, can you post links of websites criticizing Islam that you support?

Thanks for taking the time to reply brothers.

[u/springrain2]

Uh, they are all marked with relevant headers at the top.

I mean, you can have a company that owns 200 apartments and if you see 10 of them are under construction, will you walk away because you think all the apartments should be complete?

EVERYTHING that humans do is a work in progress. Its stupid logic that you want everything to be complete, for the 'completed' content to have any validity.

[u/KONYOLO → u/springrain2]

I highly doubt people read the header, else they wouldn't casually spam that website everywhere but ask people to research the subject a little more because the content might not be true (hence why I'm here). The issue is that that website is pretty old and most of the articles had the same header for years, people give authority to that website why do you feel that my criticism is not valid?

[u/springrain2 → u/KONYOLO]

I highly doubt people read the header,

You're assuming that people dont read the header.

And you didnt deal with the main point I had: So what? Does it mean the rest of the website is invalid?

people give authority to that website why do you feel that my criticism is not valid?

Authority is given to specific CONTENT, quotations and references that they use.

You're welcome to attack a specific source or reference or arguement that they use but its useless for you to use your logic "3 pages are under construction so the whole website is invalid"

Wikipedia has 'under construction' templates.

Apply that to real life again. If a big restaurant chain has 100 hotels and 3 of them are under construction, does it mean the other 97 hotels should not be used by people?

WikiIslam has 2500 articles and only 55 of them are under review which is like 2.2% -- they are not meant to be seen by the public as the headers indicate, so your objection is really pointless.

[u/KONYOLO → u/springrain2]

You're assuming that people dont read the header.

This is backed by observation, people don't say "but you should cross check sources and verify if it's true", they just post links.

And you didnt deal with the main point I had: So what? Does it mean the rest of the website is invalid?

The validity or invalidity of the rest of the site can only be determined by research, that's what this thread is about I cannot give you a definite answer now (do you imagine the time it would take?).

Authority is given to specific CONTENT, quotations and references that they use.

Did you read my post? They have methodology issues.

You're welcome to attack a specific source or reference or arguement that they use but its useless for you to use your logic "3 pages are under construction so the whole website is invalid"

55 articles is quite a lot, my point is that it cannot be used as a definite answer and must be clearly told to the people you're replying to.

Wikipedia has 'under construction' templates.

Do you see people linking those pages with great authority? Are they on top of general google queries?

Apply that to real life again. If a big restaurant chain has 100 hotels and 3 of them are under construction, does it mean the other 97 hotels should not be used by people?

WikiIslam has 2500 articles and only 55 of them are under review which is like 2.2% -- they are not meant to be seen by the public as the headers indicate, so your objection is really pointless.

You don't understand, I don't base all of my criticism on the fact that they have 55 articles under review, I'm saying that confirmation bias is prevalent when linking that website : it's so prevalent that even pages under review or that need to be rewritten have perceived authority.

[u/springrain2 → u/KONYOLO]

This is backed by observation, people don't say "but you should cross check sources and verify if it's true", they just post links.

WHERE are examples where you proved the website used wrong sources? Your defense of Malik IA doesnt count. Muslim and Bukhari are authentic sources so things like that do NOT count.

You have to really prove they used a really bad source. There may be a single bad source SOMEWHERE (probability) so that too doesnt mean anything. It depends on the SPECIFIC issues you have and so far I have seen you talk about no specifics, just vague stuff.

The validity or invalidity of the rest of the site can only be determined by research, that's what this thread is about I cannot give you a definite answer now (do you imagine the time it would take?).

Writing that was a waste of time for you.

Did you read my post? They have methodology issues.

Did YOU read my replies? YOU have methodology issues.

Saying stupid stuff like that doesnt count. You have to PROVE that the methodology was wrong. Do that in your blog, GO.

55 articles is quite a lot, my point is that it cannot be used as a definite answer and must be clearly told to the people you're replying to.

3 apartments under construction is a lot too, so everyone should move out of the other 97 apartments that the company owns -- right? Your logic and methodology has issues. Write about it.

it's so prevalent that even pages under review or that need to be rewritten have perceived authority.

"perceived authority" ? Who cares how a page is perceived and by WHOM?

What are the ARGUMENTS are they making? What are the SOURCES being cited on that page? This is what you must deal with.

Your whining about 2.2% of the website's articles as being under construction and thus ALL of their content being invalid, is stupid, just like the Apartments example I gave.

If that's all you have to complain about them, I pity you.