Talk:Mark Perakh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Criticism (or lack thereof)

How come with every pro-ID entry there is you'll almost always find critics of their position listed. Mark Perakh's name pops up quite a bit, randomly, like "by the way, Mark Perakh thinks Granville Sewell's work is 'depressingly fallacious'". But you don't get that the other way around. You never hear that "Stephen Barr finds Perakh's work depressingly irrelevant". This isn't the fault of the author of this particular entry, but it is clear that one position seems to be more acceptable than others. --jorgeK

That's true: ID is not widely accepted within the scientific community. As for why his criticisms appear on ID-related entries, that's because people look for criticism from within mainstream science, and Perakh is very vocal and covers many areas that others don't address specifically. That's not say that his criticisms are the best (cf. my criticism of his criticism of Hugh Ross at Talk:Hugh_Ross_(creationist)#Accusation_of_psuedoscience), but they do exist. If criticism of Perakh can be found in as sources that are as reliable as Perakh's publications and self-publications, then they could be added here without giving undue weight, methinks. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest reply on that, Flex. Again, it's not the fault of this particular entry that other entries have a large amount of criticism laced in, but the fact that you even took time to respond speaks highly of you. Thanks again. --jorgeK