User:BruceGrubb

I have a Masters in Anthropology from NMSU as well as a degree in accounting from DACC with one of my most influential professors regarding my approach to science being the late Fred Plogg whose views were very much like James Burke's

I developed and chaired interactive 90-minute informational/instructional presentation on behalf of NMSU's museum based on my Master's thesis "Guidelines for museum computerization and its utilization":

   Mountain Plains Museums Annual Meeting (10/05/1995) and
   Museum Association of Arizona Annual Meeting (05/19/1996).

On a more personal level I have little tolerance for edits that use quotes that engage in any of the stuff outlined in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. The ones that annoy me the most are:

• Ad hominem quotes (like the dreaded "no reputable scholar" or "all respected scholars agree..." quotes)

• Even with fringe theories there should be better quotes addressing problems with the theory rather than attacking any person who supports the fringe theory under such a broad umbrella as Ad hominem. Given the wide range of defamation such quotes may violate Wikipedia:Libel so it is best to simply avoid them.

• Argument from "authority"

This is a real problem as people will assume simply because someone is with an accredited institution he is an expert (even if it is unclear what his degree is in)

• Ignoring "Occam's razor"

• Observational selection

• Inconsistency (the source points out there problems with the material but then uses it ignoring the very problems pointed out)

• Non sequitur (position requires ignoring other implications that are common knowledge)

• Excluded middle

   Weasel words