Looking More Closely at RationalWiki
A groupthink tool used to assert dominant narratives and smear alternative views?
Some personal experiences I had with Reddit groups in mid-2024 highlighted a fascinating subculture of groupthink and people bathing in their self-reinforcing victimhood. While these experiences are perhaps a topic for a future article, one of the interesting things I found is how the fact check culture has spawned a geeky group of people who rejoice in exposing what they call “cookers” or “conspiracy theorists” or some other such pejorative under the guise of being rational thinkers dedicated to logic and evidence based science.
RationalWiki is frequently cited in such Reddit communities and others like r/sceptic, r/science and r/atheism, where users look for easy, quick rebuttals to arguments they disagree with. Adding to the notoriously biased official fact checking organisations funded by big tech and other mainstream media players—like Full Fact or BBC Verify—RationalWiki serves as a crowd sourced Wikipedia-like source for these Reddit groups to provide evidence debunking an opposing position or to establish the lack of credibility of a source referenced by someone else as a way of deflecting from the core argument.
On the surface, RationalWiki presents itself as a bastion of rational thought, dedicated to debunking pseudoscience, exposing conspiracy theories and promoting scepticism. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that RationalWiki often functions as a groupthink tool—a mechanism to reinforce dominant narratives and dismiss or smear those who present alternative views.
The Illusion of Rationality
RationalWiki claims to adhere to rational, evidence-based argumentation and articles on the site are unproblematically presented as fact-based critiques of alternative viewpoints—using scientific jargon and citations to lend authority. However, closer examination of articles on RationalWiki leads to the conclusion that this veneer of objectivity is actually a form of faux rationality which masks a tendency to selectively present information and dismiss opposing views without engaging with them substantively.
It is obvious to even a causal reader that many articles on RationalWiki present a one-sided view of the subject, strongly focusing on and emphasising evidence that supports mainstream or dominant narratives while ignoring or dismissing contradictory evidence. This selective presentation reinforces the site's favoured viewpoints while numerous citations to other sources—both selected academic articles and news articles—give the illusion of neutrality. However, the mocking tone widely adopted across the site frequently features extreme levels of sarcasm and ridicule, which belies any claim the author(s) may have to genuine rational debate and is rather designed to discredit alternative perspectives without engaging in any level of meaningful engagement.
For example, the profile on Judith Curry, a climate scientist who questions some aspects of the mainstream consensus on climate change, is a textbook example of faux rationality. Rather than engaging with Curry's critiques of data misuse and politicisation in climate science, RationalWiki dismisses her as "flirting with the denier community" and focuses on her associations with controversial figures and having committed the ultimate sin of having “agreed with Trump's description of climate change as a ‘hoax’.” However, the article doesn't critically evaluate any of her points from a balanced perspective, instead relying on ad hominem attacks and guilt by association to discredit her. This approach may convince readers who already agree with RationalWiki's stance but does little to foster an informed, balanced discussion.
Violating Its Own Prescriptions on Logical Argumentation
RationalWiki promotes itself as a hub of logical and critical thinking, often citing fallacies like ad hominem, straw man, and appeal to authority in its articles. Ironically, article published on the site frequently violate these very principles in their critiques of individuals and alternative viewpoints.
Ad hominem attacks: Instead of focusing on the arguments presented by individuals, authors of RationalWiki articles often resort to personal attacks in a blatant effort to undermine the credibility of the person rather than their claims. For example, the profile on John O'Looney, a funeral director who raised concerns about unusual clots he observed in deceased individuals post-COVID vaccination, dismisses him outright as an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist. Rather than engaging with his specific observations, RationalWiki ridicules his character and ignores the professional context of his claims.
Straw man arguments: RationalWiki articles also often misrepresent or oversimplify the views of those disagreed with to make them easier to refute. This tactic of constructing a straw man allows the authors to dismiss complex arguments without addressing the actual points raised by critics. For example, in the article on Climate Change, RationalWiki tends to simplify the views of climate sceptics, painting opposition to mainstream narrative as being “global-warming denialism” and anyone advancing such opposition as outright "deniers" who reject any notion of anthropogenic climate change. After presenting a somewhat detailed and rather dated account of the mainstream account of climate change, the article presents a graphic that purports to show how mainstream science is motivated by pure enquiry of unbiased scientists, where the opposing view is simply a product of vested industry players such as oil companies bribing people present a position that protects their interest—nothing here about the billions to be made by financiers in lucrative carbon credit markets or funding huge solar or wind power developments across the planet using taxpayer subsidies. Lastly, the article on denialists features a lengthy section on how “The denialist tactics take the form of a staircase or ladder in so far as once one tactic becomes too obviously indefensible, the denialist will move onto the next step” which presents a series of strawman arguments purportedly used by increasingly defensive “denialists” desperate to discredit can only be termed “THE SCIENCE” as revealed by the “EXPERTS”.
Appeals to authority: While RationalWiki frequently calls out others for appealing to authority, it regularly engages in this fallacy itself by over-relying on scientific consensus or mainstream institutions without scrutinising the potential biases or limitations of those sources. As highlighted with the Climate Change example above, RationalWiki authors have a distinct tendency to cherry pick scientific research and articles about papers presented in journals to present a radically one-sidedly mainstream view of a subject. On further examination, much of the evidence cited to corroborate THE SCIENCE is quite dated and often contradicted by more recent findings. For instance, the article features pictures of artic ice and a particularly emaciated looking polar bear as evidence that polar temperatures have increased and led to loss of ice and polar bears are dying out as a result. However, recent research has shown that polar bear numbers have actually increased since the cessation of hunting and other reports showed that Antarctic temperatures in 2021 were the lowest recorded in history. Another example of this is to be found in the discussion of the “Anti-vaccination movement”, where the RationalWiki article dismisses concerns from sceptics by citing public health authorities like the CDC and WHO without fairly addressing the legitimate questions raised about data transparency and conflicts of interest. Once again, the breakdown of “proofs” that discredit the (straw man) positions of those opposing vaccine sceptical views are uncritically presented without any attempt to fairly examine research that conflicts with the accepted mainstream view.
Character Assassination and Group Think
RationalWiki’s approach to dissenting views extends beyond logical fallacies to outright character assassination where articles extend beyond simple rebuttal of positions to discredit figures associated with views it opposes, using derogatory terms and highlighting negative aspects of their personal history or behaviour. In doing so, the focus shifts form the validity of the arguments to the perceived flaws of the individual, making it easier for readers to dismiss opposing views. This tactic fosters an environment of hostility and intolerance towards dissenting opinions, reinforcing in-group biases and alienating those who might hold different perspectives.
By painting individuals with alternative perspectives as "cranks", "deniers" or conspiracy theorists, the site creates an environment in which groupthink flourishes. In doing so, RationalWiki alienates those who question dominant narratives while fostering an echo chamber where dissent is taken to be irrational by default.
Examples of this can be readily observed in the profiles for both Judith Curry and John O'Looney. However, a quick search of profiles for others presenting alternative views to the mainstream reveals a similar pattern of mockery, name calling, straw man tactics and belittling.
Conclusion: RationalWiki as a Propaganda Device
While RationalWiki markets itself as a defender of rationality, its use of faux rationality, logical fallacies and character assassination reveals its true role may be seen to be as a propaganda device. Given the open source nature of RationalWiki, it is hard to identify any one person or group guiding the selection of material or the ideological approach to the writing of articles and hence it is difficult to identify a particular group or body responsible for the ideological basis other than the founder’s purported love of rational thought.
However, much like the more formal fact check alternatives like Full Fact or BBC Verify, it is apparent that RationalWiki reinforces dominant narratives and promotes groupthink by marginalising and smearing those who question mainstream views. Its enthusiastic culture of name calling, smearing and character assassination obviously appeals to many of the smart young people that inhabit the many often insular social media forums like Reddit where concentrated groupthink often fosters a rabid contempt and disparagement of out-group personalities and their opinions.