The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

6 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Anti-ID group (IDCAB) begins again?, Can't tell you how much I missed that friendly bunch.
Sxeptomaniac
post Wed 19th January 2011, 6:43pm
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu 18th Oct 2007, 11:49pm
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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: Wed 19th January 2011, 6:55pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Wed 19th January 2011, 11:13pm
Post #2


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Wed 19th January 2011, 6:43pm) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NuclearWarfare
post Thu 20th January 2011, 12:04am
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue 23rd Dec 2008, 10:24pm
Member No.: 9,506

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Cla, do you honestly think that intelligent design is a scientific theory?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Doc glasgow
post Thu 20th January 2011, 12:18am
Post #4


Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined: Sat 1st Apr 2006, 10:39pm
From: at home
Member No.: 90

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Thu 20th January 2011, 12:04am) *

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



It is a theory, and it relates to science. Define science?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Thu 20th January 2011, 12:24am
Post #5


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
taiwopanfob
post Thu 20th January 2011, 1:03am
Post #6


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 12:21pm
Member No.: 214



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.


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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RMHED
post Thu 20th January 2011, 1:07am
Post #7


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri 8th May 2009, 8:48pm
Member No.: 11,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Thu 20th January 2011, 1:14am
Post #8


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 19th January 2011, 9:07pm) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Doc glasgow
post Thu 20th January 2011, 1:18am
Post #9


Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined: Sat 1st Apr 2006, 10:39pm
From: at home
Member No.: 90

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Thu 20th January 2011, 1:19am
Post #10


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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?


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: Thu 20th January 2011, 1:20am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RMHED
post Thu 20th January 2011, 1:22am
Post #11


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri 8th May 2009, 8:48pm
Member No.: 11,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 20th January 2011, 1:14am) *


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.
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 20th January 2011, 1:14am) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Thu 20th January 2011, 1:25am
Post #12


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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: Thu 20th January 2011, 1:27am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Thu 20th January 2011, 2:03am
Post #13


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 19th January 2011, 5:18pm) *

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Thu 20th January 2011, 12:04am) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RMHED
post Thu 20th January 2011, 2:06am
Post #14


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri 8th May 2009, 8:48pm
Member No.: 11,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 20th January 2011, 2:03am) *


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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Doc glasgow
post Thu 20th January 2011, 2:16am
Post #15


Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined: Sat 1st Apr 2006, 10:39pm
From: at home
Member No.: 90

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Thu 20th January 2011, 2:22am
Post #16


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 19th January 2011, 10:16pm) *
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.

QUOTE
There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.
Yes - always using the same methodological framework.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RMHED
post Thu 20th January 2011, 2:26am
Post #17


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri 8th May 2009, 8:48pm
Member No.: 11,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Thu 20th January 2011, 2:16am) *

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.

Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century's Eugenics and will go the same way.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Thu 20th January 2011, 2:27am
Post #18


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 19th January 2011, 10:26pm) *
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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RMHED
post Thu 20th January 2011, 2:34am
Post #19


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri 8th May 2009, 8:48pm
Member No.: 11,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 20th January 2011, 2:27am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 19th January 2011, 10:26pm) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Thu 20th January 2011, 2:37am
Post #20


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 19th January 2011, 9:26pm) *

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? unsure.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 4 14, 3:38pm