A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange Options

[Derktar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...er:Orangemarlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210232016
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210231458

I don't know - we have an active contributor to Wikipedia Review apparently editing on behalf of another Wikipedia Review editor (who happens to be a permabanned editor). Not too big a leap at all... Guettarda (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right folks, I forgot to mention we re-programmed Krimpet a week or so ago and we are finally putting her to use.

So sorry you had to wander into that mess Krimpet.

[Moulton]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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