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:

[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.

[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?

[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

[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:

[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.

[CharlotteWebb]

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.

If you think that's circular, you might consider that (a) theories such as Darwinian evolution adapt to their environment in a manner akin to Darwinian evolution, to the extent that science applies a certain selective pressure against ideas incompatible with new data; whereas (b) theories such as "intelligent design" are in fact intelligently designed for socio-political gain, to present data and gaps therein as evidence of conclusions already taken for granted (owing to Sunday-school sing-alongs or whatever).

[Cla68]

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:

[lilburne]

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.