A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange Options

[Kato]

Filll admits the petition can be interpreted seventeen ways from Sunday...

My personal view, which disagrees with some sources, is that the petition is written so vaguely that every single scientifically literate person, would agree with it. --Filll (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I happen to think that a scientifically literate person (such as James Tour or Rosalind Picard) might agree that scientists should examine the evidence for any proposed theory with a skeptical eye.

And so I suggested this way of writing the paragraph on the James Tour BLP...

Controversial petition

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Dr. Tour was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers out of several hundred scientists and engineers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's newly launched website promoting a controversial petition characterized as "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which states "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Tour's field of organic chemistry is a branch of scientific research which establishes his credentials as a practitioner and advocate of the protocols of the scientific method as they apply to all branches of science. The controversy arises from confusion over whether the statement is an expression of the technical protocols of the scientific method or an expression favoring a political agenda regarding the teaching of scientific subjects related to evolution.

Rework the "Tour's field of organic..." But otherwise, that seems a dry, neutral, accurate and satisfactory account of events.

By the way, I'm staggered by the naivety of the signers. But again, that is beside the point. There's no accounting for you lab coat wearing eggheads.

[Moulton]

Rework the "Tour's field of organic..." But otherwise, that seems a dry, neutral, accurate and satisfactory account of events.

It was immediately reverted on the grounds of WP:POINT in favor of an interpretation that Tour was a raving lunatic who was out marching for ID.

By the way, I'm staggered by the naivety of the signers. But again, that is beside the point. There's no accounting for you lab coat wearing eggheads.

No more naive than my presumption that Wikipedia was a real encyclopedia that adhered to some realistic standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in media.

How silly of me to have imagined that.

[Kato]

Rework the "Tour's field of organic..." But otherwise, that seems a dry, neutral, accurate and satisfactory account of events.

It was immediately reverted on the grounds of WP:POINT in favor of an interpretation that Tour was a raving lunatic who was out marching for ID.

By the way, I'm staggered by the naivety of the signers. But again, that is beside the point. There's no accounting for you lab coat wearing eggheads.

No more naive than my presumption that Wikipedia was a real encyclopedia that adhered to some realistic standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in media.

How silly of me to have imagined that.

Indeed. Most of us fell for that one. I certainly did, much to my chagrin. That sense of being cheated, having my talents and time wasted on that sham before the truth became blatantly obvious is probably one of my motivations for exposing the site's flaws now.

[Kato]

If you read the WP article on "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" it is biased from the start. (Again I may as well stress that I am a fully paid up member of RichardDawkins.net, have no time for any claims of "Intelligent Design", and would take a very dim view of anyone who tried to push that delusional mumbo-jumbo on my children)

Below is an example of how the agenda has been pushed onto the subject matter:

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism states that:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

The statement, and its title, refer to evolution as "Darwinism" or "Darwinian theory", both of which are vague, misleading and are not used by scientists to refer to current theories. In fact, the use of the term "Darwinism" in modern usage is usually a pejorative term employed only by creationists.

The bolded section is completely unnecessary and is not even attributed. The whole article has been framed to discredit the Discovery Institute. Sure, DI are deluded and manipulative, but what happened to "show don't tell"?

[Sxeptomaniac]

By the way, I'm staggered by the naivety of the signers. But again, that is beside the point. There's no accounting for you lab coat wearing eggheads.

I don't know... I tend to view petitions as a starting point, nothing more. If someone asks me to sign a petition, I'll often sign it just to give the subject a chance for more debate, unless it's something I'm obviously opposed to. Of course, I don't really have to worry much about protecting my professional image, either (I doubt I ever will, for that matter). Perhaps some others think along similar lines, though.

If you read the WP article on "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" it is biased from the start. (Again I may as well stress that I am a fully paid up member of RichardDawkins.net, have no time for any claims of "Intelligent Design", and would take a very dim view of anyone who tried to push that delusional mumbo-jumbo on my children)

Below is an example of how the agenda has been pushed onto the subject matter:

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism states that:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

The statement, and its title, refer to evolution as "Darwinism" or "Darwinian theory", both of which are vague, misleading and are not used by scientists to refer to current theories. In fact, the use of the term "Darwinism" in modern usage is usually a pejorative term employed only by creationists.

The bolded section is completely unnecessary and is not even attributed. The whole article has been framed to discredit the Discovery Institute. Sure, DI are deluded and manipulative, but what happened to "show don't tell"?

Ah, but they fear people making the "wrong" choices as to what to believe. Science is their religion, and they are the evangelists and defenders of the faith.

(As sometimes people have misunderstood when I have commented in similar situations in the past, let me be absolutely clear: I am not saying that science is a religion. However, it can certainly be made into one, as with many other things.)

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac: Wed 7th May 2008, 6:53am

[Moulton]

Science is their religion, and they are the evangelists and defenders of the faith.

I don't see it that way, for the simple reason that the members of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design have not demonstrated even an elementary ability to engage in scientific reasoning. When it comes to evidence and reasoning, I look to the protocols of the Scientific Method as the gold standard. I was frankly appalled (and still am) at the utter failure of the editors in that clique to form and articulate hypotheses that are supported by a critical examination of the evidence.

If it were true that they are ardent in their belief and practice of the protocols of the Scientific Method, I daresay none of this disgraceful drama would ever have taken place.

Moreover, no self-respecting scientist would ever engage in anything so silly and unscientific as the Spammish Inquisition, except as a theatrical farce.

[Moulton]

Returning now to the latest postings in the colloquies on the Picard BLP talk page, they are increasingly revealing now.

It is becoming apparent that the editors in the WikiProject on Intelligent Design are hell-bent on publishing as encyclopedic fact a rather dubious theory of mind of a particular signer of the 2001 statement. But even if their haphazard theory of mind were accidentally correct, it would still be unpublishable since there is no clear evidence to support it. If anything, the evidence is that the subject of the bio is skeptical of all theories, from Darwin to ID, inclusive. Which, as I understand the Scientific Method, is a healthy attitude to take. For any theory or belief, what is the evidence and reasoning upon which a given theory or belief rests?

I have co-authored several peer-reviewed papers with Picard, including one prize-winning conference paper that is highlighted on Picard's bio. I know from direct experience how intensely rigorous Picard is when it comes to reporting the results of scientific experiments and crafting scientific theories to explain the experimental observations at hand. Picard doesn't let any explanatory theory slip by without a rigorous examination of the evidence, and rigorous scientific reasoning to support it.

For example, in her 1997 text on Affective Computing, she includes a description of my work in studying the relationship between emotions and learning (pp. 93-94). But she does not present the theory I had proposed because, in 1997, we had not yet carried out any rigorous scientific studies to properly ground the proposed theory. She doesn't even mention in the book that we have a tentative theory. It wasn't until 2001 that we first published a conference paper proposing the theory. That was the peer-reviewed publication that won the Best Paper Award at the International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2001).

[Moulton]

What hath Wiki wrought?

A dramatic exercise designed to reveal the unanticipated consequences of launching one of the most prominent ethically-challenged sites on the Internet.

The above exchange occured in the wake of Doc Glasgow's departure from Wikipedia over the intractability of the BLP problem.

Now, the latest example of the BLP problem is playing out on the very same biography that I first deigned to edit last August, in a futile effort to raise it (and others like it) to a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in media.

I note that FCYTravis (with whom I have not directly communicated, save for what he might have read in these threads), is making many of the same arguments I made, back in August.

[Jon Awbrey]

Science is their religion, and they are the evangelists and defenders of the faith.

I don't see it that way, for the simple reason that the members of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design have not demonstrated even an elementary ability to engage in scientific reasoning. When it comes to evidence and reasoning, I look to the protocols of the Scientific Method as the gold standard. I was frankly appalled (and still am) at the utter failure of the editors in that clique to form and articulate hypotheses that are supported by a critical examination of the evidence.

If it were true that they are ardent in their belief and practice of the protocols of the Scientific Method, I daresay none of this disgraceful drama would ever have taken place.

Moreover, no self-respecting scientist would ever engage in anything so silly and unscientific as the Spammish Inquisition, except as a theatrical farce.

So tell me, in your Book Of Scientific Method (BOSM), 'splain to me again the part where it says:

Step Ω. When faced with a disturbing conclusion, throw up your hands, do a funny double-take, emit rubish H'yuck-H'yuck-H'yuck sounds, and blather on about Comic Operas and Dithyrambs?

'Cause I Must've Been Playing Hooky That Day …

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 7th May 2008, 3:32pm

[Sxeptomaniac]

Science is their religion, and they are the evangelists and defenders of the faith.

I don't see it that way, for the simple reason that the members of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design have not demonstrated even an elementary ability to engage in scientific reasoning. When it comes to evidence and reasoning, I look to the protocols of the Scientific Method as the gold standard. I was frankly appalled (and still am) at the utter failure of the editors in that clique to form and articulate hypotheses that are supported by a critical examination of the evidence.

If it were true that they are ardent in their belief and practice of the protocols of the Scientific Method, I daresay none of this disgraceful drama would ever have taken place.

Moreover, no self-respecting scientist would ever engage in anything so silly and unscientific as the Spammish Inquisition, except as a theatrical farce.

That's true, but religion, especially when taken to extremes, has a way of corrupting the object of faith along the way. Surely you've noticed the similarities in the behavior of some of the group and and a foaming-at-the-mouth religious fundamentalist.

[Moulton]

If it were true that they are ardent in their belief and practice of the protocols of the Scientific Method, I daresay none of this disgraceful drama would ever have taken place.

Moreover, no self-respecting scientist would ever engage in anything so silly and unscientific as the Spammish Inquisition, except as a theatrical farce.

That's true, but religion, especially when taken to extremes, has a way of corrupting the object of faith along the way. Surely you've noticed the similarities in the behavior of some of the group and and a foaming-at-the-mouth religious fundamentalist.

Well, they adopt their beliefs on pure faith, without grounding them in evidence and scientific reasoning, and then seek to coerce others into swallowing their novel beliefs, or else.

'Cause I Must've Been Playing Hooky That Day …

Apparently so.

Or as Yehudi might put it, Ma-nishtanah ha-yom ha-zeh?

[Moulton]

While this thread began with an opening sneeze involving Krimpet and OrangeMarlin, perhaps the thread title could be revised to more accurately capture the essence of the story as it unfolded during the course of the opera.

The story reminds me of The Hary Janos Suite, but I daresay that's too obscure a musical reference to be meaningful to most observers here.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more meaningful topic title, given that we've now zoomed out a bit from the tip of the iceberg to discover other sharks in the water besides an orange marlin?

[Moulton]

Somewhere between last December and this week, someone removed from James Tour's BLP his published disclaimer that he is not a proponent of ID.

On his web page labeled "Evolution/Creation" [http://www.jmtour.com/?page_id=27], Tour writes that "I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design."

Is there some reason that express disclaimer vanished from Tour's bio?

[dogbiscuit]

While this thread began with an opening sneeze involving Krimpet and OrangeMarlin, perhaps the thread title could be revised to more accurately capture the essence of the story as it unfolded during the course of the opera.

The story reminds me of The Hary Janos Suite, but I daresay that's too obscure a musical reference to be meaningful to most observers here.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more meaningful topic title, given that we've now zoomed out a bit from the tip of the iceberg to discover other sharks in the water besides an orange marlin?

Nothing polite comes to mind. I would note that I did nominate them for tag team of the year back here, albeit with dodgy spelling.

The hatchet job on the article on Affective Computing is appalling. Tagging stuff that is a straightforward uncontroversial explanation with fact and vague. It is not about writing an article, it is about discrediting the subject to embarrass you and Picard. If its vague, reword it. If you can't, why are you trying to edit something you don't know anything about and the previous authors did.

The edit history shows a hit squad swarming.

Nasty people.

[Kato]

The behavior of these people, who have now moved onto the Affecting Computing article to use it as a vehicle to get revenge on you, is simply outrageous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

[Moulton]

What's even more exasperating is that I'm now exchanging messages with more than one person here in PM, which has no way to CC another person. One person PMs me asking a question and I answer it. Then someone else PMs me with the identical question and I have no way to bring up my previous response because neither the Firefox browser history nor the Sent Items retains a copy.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Thu 8th May 2008, 3:59pm

[Jon Awbrey]

What's even more exasperating is that I'm now exchanging messages with more than one person here in PM, which has no way to CC another person. One person PMs me asking a question and I answer it. Then someone else PMs me with the identical question and I have no way to bring up my previous response because neither the Firefox browser history nor the Sent Items retains a copy.

There's a box you can check if you want to keep an archive copy —

Options √ Add a copy of this message to my sent items folder

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Thu 8th May 2008, 4:12pm

[Moulton]

There's a box you can check if you want to keep an archive copy.

Thank you. I see that now. I use the PM feature so infrequently that I hadn't learned to defend myself against the default, which is to not save a copy.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Somewhere between last December and this week, someone removed from James Tour's BLP his published disclaimer that he is not a proponent of ID.

On his web page labeled "Evolution/Creation" [http://www.jmtour.com/?page_id=27], Tour writes that "I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design."

Is there some reason that express disclaimer vanished from Tour's bio?

It's part of the same editing behavior that messed up Affective computing (notice that Odd Nature gutted it under the rather deceptive summary "copyedit". I had to focus on preventing the article from saying that Tour signed a petition promoting ID, then the debate over at Rosalind Picard. I was going to go back and do some repair work on that section of Tour's article today.

It's rather frustrating how the debate at Picard's article turned out. Guettarda suggests a version of what had been argued for all along, and suddenly it's OK. The only possible explanation I can give is that the anti-ID crowd had to see the suggestion come from someone they consider one of their own. At least Guettarda seems to have some reading comprehension skills.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac: Thu 8th May 2008, 4:17pm

[Moulton]

Is there some reason we can't all use open collaboration, rather than have competing factions compounded by awkard-to-use back-channel PMs, etc, in a silly effort to conceal who is or isn't exchanging messages with me?