|
Anti-ID group (IDCAB) begins again?, Can't tell you how much I missed that friendly bunch. |
|
|
Sxeptomaniac |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined:
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542
|
I had really hoped they'd keep themselves under control after FeloniousMonk's desysopping a while back, but they appear to be back at it again. Cla68 seems to have stirred them up by trying to add a "Scientific theories" category to the Intelligent Design article. Don't think it was a really good idea, but it doesn't justify the reaction. Now Hrafn has decided to tag various articles as being Creationism stubs, including James Tour, a guy who has specifically said that he's not an intelligent design supporter. He signed a petition, so therefore he's a creationist, even if he says otherwise, right? Never mind that he's done nothing else related to creationism, and all indicators are that he never will. Now Guettarda's gaming to try to keep the tag in (since when is the burden of evidence on the one removing material from a BLP?). I really did not want to get involved with these people again, but I'm not letting them go back to messing with BLPs like they did in the past. This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies
Sarcasticidealist |
|
Head exploded.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined:
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536
|
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 19th January 2011, 8:18pm) It is a theory, and it relates to science. Define science? By normal definition, a scientific theory is one that has emerged through the scientific method, broadly defined (evolution generally defies controlled hypothesis testing, but there can be more to science than that). Intelligent design is no such thing. Of course, people might take the approach that you do, and adopt a widely used colloquial definition of "theory". But if you take that definition of "theory", isn't "scientific theory" redundant? Can you think of a "theory" under that definition that doesn't relate to science? In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.
|
|
|
|
Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 20th January 2011, 1:07am) QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 20th January 2011, 12:24am)
In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.
Now that smacks of protectionism and self interest. Yeah lets allow the scientists to define what is scientific. Why not also allow the clergy to define what is religious? It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science. It is the last bastion of naive modernism. The equivalent would be me saying Mormons aren't Christians, because all true Christians agree Mormons aren't Christians. QED
|
|
|
|
Sarcasticidealist |
|
Head exploded.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined:
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536
|
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 19th January 2011, 9:18pm) It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science. In the abstract, virtually all scientists would agree on what constitutes a science, with perhaps minor distinctions. Scientists may apply that definition in different ways, but at least they have a common framework by which to argue the question. Look at this business about vaccinations causing autism: the idea is roundly rejected by virtually all scientists, and defended by a tiny minority. But there is agreement on all sides about what criteria the idea must meet in order to be considered "scientific". Of course, scientists, like the rest of humanity, are fallible, prejudiced, and at times intellectually dishonest. For that reason, they can refuse to accept as scientific theories and fields that are, by their own definition, scientific. But that is not an argument against the "scientific" definition of science. QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 19th January 2011, 9:22pm) Who determines the methodology, oh yeah other scientists! Hardly a level playing field. It is a peculiar egalitarianism that demands that scientists and non-scientists be placed on a "level playing field" on scientific questions. This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:
|
|
|
|
Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 20th January 2011, 1:25am) QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 19th January 2011, 9:18pm) It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science. In the abstract, virtually all scientists would agree on what constitutes a science, with perhaps minor distinctions. Scientists may apply that definition in different ways, but at least they have a common framework by which to argue the question. Look at this business about vaccinations causing autism: the idea is roundly rejected by virtually all scientists, and defended by a tiny minority. But there is agreement on all sides about what criteria the idea must meet in order to be considered "scientific". That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available. Of course, either may be completely wrong. There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
I believe this and this threads show that, at least for immediate future, there is very little hope that the ID topic stands much of a chance of being presented in a neutral manner in Wikipedia. In the discussion, while I tried to focus on compliance with policy (and I, of course may be mistaken in my interpretation), no one else really attempts to justify their opinion with Wikipedia policy. Instead, they repeatedly state that the article should be a certain way because their way represents the truth. In other words, the sources they prefer say that ID is a blight on humanity, so the article needs to show that. Notice in these edits that several editors openly express a fear of allowing an action that might show ID in a favorable light. They don't even try to hide that they are promoting an anti-ID POV. I never really understood before the depth of contempt and hatred the anti-ID group displays towards ID in Wikipedia. After looking at a bunch of sources in Infotrac today, however, I think I understand better where it's coming from. What I saw was that the academic community loathes ID and the people who promote it with an almost rabid intensity. I read one article, in an academic journal no less, in which the scientist author at the end of the article lists the contact information for anti-ID organizations and asks readers to contribute to the anti-ID cause! I saw other articles in other academic journals about ID in which the academics writing them made no effort at all to treat the subject in a measured, neutral manner. The high level of antipathy and hostility towards the idea appears widespread and unashamed. I now understand better the odds the ID article in Wikipedia is facing to ever be treated in a neutral fashion. This post has been edited by Cla68:
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 20th January 2011, 11:20am) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 20th January 2011, 10:10am)
I don't know how one would begin to be neutral about a bunch of nutjob loonies. It sort of amuses me that a number of my entomology photos get stuffed onto creationwiki. But it did cause me some concern when I had a couple of midwest educators contacted me about using a photo for a book on the 'Evidence for evolotion" fortunately my fears were alaid: I particularly like the 'bubble of ignorance' quote at the end. ID proponents do strike me as nutjobs if they truly believe they can counter education about evolution with a theory as non-sensical as ID is. Anyway, I thought I would point out that today in the ID topic, all three behaviors described in the Activist essay were on display: 1. Removal of information- Hrafn removes the category before any discussion on its viability had even begun. 2. BLP- Guettarda tries to sneakily label a signatory of the infamous ID petition as a creationist, even though the guy says that he isn't one. Guettarda then edit wars to try to keep it there. 3. Incivility- Guettarda belittles or insults me on article talk pages not once, or twice, but three times. Another editor, Dominus Vobisdu, subtlely threatens with me with block in a different talk page discussion. I think that's a first for me to be threatened with a block for engaging in a talk page discussion. I've never come across that editor before. How did he have so much information about my past? Anyone else who tries to NPOV Intelligent Design will probably face similar treatment. This is as bad as I've ever seen it with that article. My addition of the category wasn't necessarily correct, but the treatment I received as detailed above was really unnecessarily hostile. This post has been edited by Cla68:
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
Sxeptomaniac Anti-ID group (IDCAB) begins again? Cla68
I had really hoped they'd keep themselves und... taiwopanfob In the interests of clarity and in having words me... Sarcasticidealist Why not also allow the clergy to define what is re... RMHED
But comparing the clergy to scientists is also s... Sarcasticidealist That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design... radek
That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Desig... RMHED
Btw, one strong argument in favor evolution over... radek
[quote name='radek' post='266169' date='Thu 20th ... radek
[quote name='radek' post='266169' date='Thu 20th... Sarcasticidealist While we're on the topic I also think that His... RMHED
[quote name='radek' post='266169' date='Thu 20th... Sarcasticidealist Evolution can be tested via inferential statistics... RMHED
[quote name='Sarcasticidealist' post='266150' dat... Sarcasticidealist Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century... RMHED
Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century... SB_Johnny
Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century... RMHED
Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century... Milton Roe
That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Desig... Cla68
[quote name='Doc glasgow' post='266158' date='Wed... EricBarbour Anyway, you all are making good points about what ... Sxeptomaniac
ID proponents do strike me as nutjobs if they tru... Cla68
[quote name='Sarcasticidealist' post='266138' dat... Milton Roe
[quote name='NuclearWarfare' post='266134' date='... RMHED
And yes, sciences are predictive. Even in the br... Milton Roe
And yes, sciences are predictive. Even in the b... Lar
Cla, do you honestly think that intelligent desig... lilburne
But some people seem to, and if there are enough ... Milton Roe
But some people seem to, and if there are enough... lilburne
As with proponents of ID: they poison the min... Cla68
But some people seem to, and if there are enough... lilburne
[quote name='lilburne' post='266239' date='Thu 20... Kelly Martin I think that part of the problem is that a fair an... lilburne ID: A religious hoax, masquerading as science, tha... lonza leggiera
... See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ... Doc glasgow The Creation Science article contains, not to put ... Milton Roe
The Creation Science article contains, not to put... Cyclopia
The Creation Science article contains, not to put... Kelly Martin The ID/anti-ID fight is one between committed ideo... Doc glasgow
The ID/anti-ID fight is one between committed ide... Milton Roe
The ID/anti-ID fight is one between committed id... taiwopanfob So, what jobs are left? Do we need god to make hum... Milton Roe
[quote name='Milton Roe' post='266270' date='Fri ... Kelly Martin Looks to me like a lot of it is a fight between pe... Doc glasgow
The "neutral point of view" is that int... lilburne
[quote name='Kelly Martin' post='266274' date='Fr... Lar
Looks to me like a lot of it is a fight between p... Kelly Martin I call BS. As with the CC fiasco, some participant... Lar
I call BS. As with the CC fiasco, some participan... Sxeptomaniac
The sad thing is that the argument for intelligen... EricBarbour And that's it. The anti-ID group likes to mak... lilburne Back in the mid 80s I was the duty chemist in a ch... Doc glasgow
Back in the mid 80s I was the duty chemist in a c... lilburne
Intelligent liberals tolerate horoscopes, Sciento... Cyclopia
Intelligent liberals tolerate horoscopes, Sciento... Jagärdu
Intelligent liberals tolerate horoscopes, Scient... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='266305' date='Fri 21... Jagärdu
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='266305' date='Fri 2... CharlotteWebb
ID is utter nonesense, but it is also just as har... Kelly Martin ID is utter nonesense, but it is also just as harm... Milton Roe
ID is utter nonesense, but it is also just as har... Sxeptomaniac
The answer is much simpler, and entirely politica... lilburne
[The thing many anti-ID people don't understa... Doc glasgow
[The thing many anti-ID people don't underst... lilburne
[quote name='lilburne' post='266326' date='Fri 21... CharlotteWebb http://i51.tinypic.com/2r2xaix.jpg Milton Roe
http://i51.tinypic.com/2r2xaix.jpg
You know, met... Sxeptomaniac
Any animal that couldn't get underground or u... Jagärdu
The answer is much simpler, and entirely politic... Sxeptomaniac
Bingo. That's why I don't get all worked... Cla68 The answer -at least for myself- is that while it ... lilburne
If I say on the ID talk page, "Present the a... Cla68
If I say on the ID talk page, "Present the ... lilburne
So, you're scared that someone might accident... taiwopanfob
So, you're scared that someone might acciden... Milton Roe
[quote name='Cla68' post='266386' date='Sat 22nd ... Kelly Martin That is part of the problem with the IDCab. They ... Gruntled
Wikipedia's readers are generally credulous; ... Cedric
Wikipedia's readers are generally credulous;... Kelly Martin
Wikipedia's readers are generally credulous;... Cyclopia
[quote name='Cyclopia' post='266305' date='Fri 21... taiwopanfob The point is that if you don't say that ID has... Cla68 I think it was Doc Glasgow who said in relation to... Kelly Martin There are portions of the evolutionary model that ... Doc glasgow Whilst I didn't agree with all of it, I can he... Cyclopia
Whilst I didn't agree with all of it, I can h... lilburne +10 Very cute.
[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.c... CharlotteWebb
DAw-nkD8G2Q
[size=3][i]It seemed so plausible... Milton Roe
+10 Very cute.
http://i288.photobucket.com/albu... SB_Johnny
+10 Very cute.
http://i288.photobucket.com/alb... lonza leggiera
... Elohim (the gods) really should be plural in ... SB_Johnny A contribution from the wilderness from somebody w... lilburne Don't know who Hrafn is but this was an enjoya... Cla68
Don't know who [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w... Sxeptomaniac
Don't know who [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/... Kwork
Don't know who Hrafn is but this was an enjoy... lilburne
For my pains I watched the debate Berlinski ha... EricBarbour [quote name='lilburne' post='267381' date='Thu 3rd... EricBarbour Just got a reminder that Moulton repeatedly outed ...
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |