Anti-ID group (IDCAB) begins again?, Can't tell you how much I missed that friendly bunch. Options

[Sxeptomaniac]

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:

[Cla68]

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.

It seems that they haven't given up trying to tar and feather everyone who signed that petition. Is Hrafn OrangeMarlin or Jim62sch reincarnated? His insulting, bullying attitude and insufferable POV pushing is just like how those other two editors acted around the ID articles when they were editing.

[NuclearWarfare]

Cla, do you honestly think that intelligent design is a scientific theory?

[Doc glasgow]

Cla, do you honestly think that intelligent design is a scientific theory?

It is a theory, and it relates to science. Define science?

[Sarcasticidealist]

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.

[taiwopanfob]

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.

Then a theory is something that makes a prediction. You have phlogiston theory and relativity theory.

The central issue of science is coming up with theories and then either finding support for or against them.

Hence adjectives like "discredited" when referring to some theories, and "well supported" when commenting on others.

[RMHED]

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?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Why not also allow the clergy to define what is religious?

If they're (that is, clergy from all religions) prepared to agree upon a clear definition that can be applied with approximate uniformity and which approximately matches the sense in which the word is already commonly used (to avoid confusion), that's fine with me.

But comparing the clergy to scientists is also somewhat misleading, since the first is defined by a set of beliefs, and the second by a methodology. If a Lutheran pastor concludes through study that, for example, there is no God, then he very quickly ceases to be a Lutheran pastor, regardless of the methodology that led him to that conclusion. If a scientist concludes through study that, for example, the standard atomic model is incorrect, she is still a scientist, provided that she applied scientific methodology in reaching that conclusion.

[Doc glasgow]

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

[Cla68]

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?

Yes, it's not up to Wikipedia to decide what is and isn't a scientific theory. Also, I thought the assignation of categories in Wikipedia was not a content judgment. In other words, if "Enneagram of Personality" is assigned to the "Pseudoscience" category, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is saying that it is a Pseudoscience, only that one or more of the sources are claiming that. If so, then the same thing should be true for Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, because some people, as reported in the sources, claim that it is. I notice that some of the "Science" editors are very quick to cast aspersions of quackery on theories they don't approve of, but very resistant to those theories being classified in opposite terms even if there are reliable sources showing that some people do consider them to be scientific theories.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[RMHED]

But comparing the clergy to scientists is also somewhat misleading, since the first is defined by a set of beliefs, and the second by a methodology. If a Lutheran pastor concludes through study that, for example, there is no God, then he very quickly ceases to be a Lutheran pastor, regardless of the methodology that led him to that conclusion.

Nah, that's just another religious schism. Just replace God with aliens = New Religion.

If a scientist concludes through study that, for example, the standard atomic model is incorrect, she is still a scientist, provided that she applied scientific methodology in reaching that conclusion.

Who determines the methodology, oh yeah other scientists! Hardly a level playing field.

[Sarcasticidealist]

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.

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:

[Milton Roe]

Cla, do you honestly think that intelligent design is a scientific theory?

It is a theory, and it relates to science. Define science?

See science. Yes, it may be Wikipedia, but it's as good a definition of the word as you'll find.

And yes, sciences are predictive. Even in the broadest senses of the word.

[RMHED]

And yes, sciences are predictive. Even in the broadest senses of the word.

Only because they've narrowed down the answers to ones that agree with their cosy consensus.

[Doc glasgow]

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.

[Sarcasticidealist]

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.

Darwin's theory is predictive, and falsifiable (at least in principle - as I said earlier, it does defy controlled attempts at nullification, since it's difficult to "evolve" organisms in a lab or over a reasonable period of time). The "theory" of intelligent design is neither.

There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.

Yes - always using the same methodological framework.

[RMHED]

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.

Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century's Eugenics and will go the same way.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century's Eugenics and will go the same way.

It will be rejected because it's morally repugnant, regardless of underlying scientific validity?

[RMHED]

Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century's Eugenics and will go the same way.

It will be rejected because it's morally repugnant, regardless of underlying scientific validity?

It'll be rejected because it's bunkum, just like Eugenics.

Although as far as science is concerned it's served a useful purpose in regards to aiding funding. Gotta keep those scientists employed doing something and nothing like a good old scare story to help those funding dollars flow.

[SB_Johnny]

Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century's Eugenics and will go the same way.

Are you channeling Colbert, or are you one of those people who sighs with relief when the sun rises in the morning? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)