Tisthammerw (talk | contribs) →Notes to editors: Re-inserted comment; please don't be disruptive Felonious |
Duncharris (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by Tisthammerw (talk) to last version by FeloniousMonk |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
== Notes to editors == |
== Notes to editors == |
||
#This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambigious. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion', .. |
#This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambigious. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion', .. |
||
''My comment'' I think the problem can be solved by using the word “theory” to mean “theory” in the ordinary sense and “scientific theory” to mean a theory the “scientific” sense. Ambiguity resolved. --[[User:Tisthammerw|Wade A. Tisthammer]] 22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Line 155: | Line 152: | ||
::His repeated droning on about the article's verfiability is disruptive. His objections have not brought quality to this article or to Wikipedia, but mayhem. He's already filled two archived page with specious reasonings based on his own original research, we needn't sit by while he disrupts this page as well. If other reasonable editors find the these supporting cites to be insufficient, they are welcome to add additional cites. But it is not a valid a justification for removing credible, relevant content, which has always been Wade Tisthammer's central demand and why we are yet once again having to respond to him. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
::His repeated droning on about the article's verfiability is disruptive. His objections have not brought quality to this article or to Wikipedia, but mayhem. He's already filled two archived page with specious reasonings based on his own original research, we needn't sit by while he disrupts this page as well. If other reasonable editors find the these supporting cites to be insufficient, they are welcome to add additional cites. But it is not a valid a justification for removing credible, relevant content, which has always been Wade Tisthammer's central demand and why we are yet once again having to respond to him. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
:::If trying to make the section conform to Wikipedia policy is disruptive, then I am being disruptive. I do '''not''' want the "who designed the designer" section removed altogether, I'd just like it to conform to Wikipedia policy; and that means no [[WP:NOR|original research]] in the section. I must admit however, that people replacing one piece of [[WP:NOR|original research]] for another is getting tiresome. I've created a version that I would find acceptable below (the addendum). It is essentially the same, with all statements I suspect to be original research removed, and one sentence describing the minority view (while still giving anti-ID the last word). --[[User:Tisthammerw|Wade A. Tisthammer]] 22:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Duncharris, where is this citation of Dawkins and Coyne making the argument, "the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object"? If it exists, please provide it. Such a citation would certainly meet my request. Otherwise I don't think you or anyone else has even attempted to provide citations regarding this argument (yet). --[[User:Tisthammerw|Wade A. Tisthammer]] 22:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
=== Addendum === |
|||
In looking at the section, the "who designed the designer" seems so rife with [[WP:NOR|original research]] that it might be best to just completely rewrite it. Here's what I propose: |
|||
:In claiming that life was intelligent design, critics have asked the question of who designed the designer. Dawkins and Coyne have argued that "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation." They further argue that Intelligent Design simply takes the complexity required for life to have evolved and moves it to the "designer" instead. Intelligent Design does not explain how the complexity happened in the first place; it just moves it. In this view, explaining the origin of life on Earth by reference to a designer explains nothing, for it does not explain the origin of the designer. And if the designer is itself designed, there is the possibility of falling into an infinite regression of designers. A design inference is thus vacuous and illegitimate. |
|||
:ID adherents have claimed that one can still rationally infer design (e.g. a radio message sent by extraterrestrials) without knowing the identity or origins of the designer. Nonetheless, the vast majority of scientists claim there is insufficient reason to make a design inference for life on Earth in the first place. |
|||
I thought it fair to include one sentence (count: only ''one'') to describe the minority view. A citation for that minority view [[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1147 can easily be given]]. Why did I cut out the rest? I'm not convinced that the rest of the material in the Wikipedia article isn't [[WP:NOR|original research]]. If a citation of a prominent ID opponent can be given making those claims, the claims should be included. Otherwise they are not legitimate. --[[User:Tisthammerw|Wade A. Tisthammer]] 22:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Additional suggestion from Wade (moved)== |
==Additional suggestion from Wade (moved)== |
||
Line 177: | Line 159: | ||
:"theory in the ordinary sense" is a non sequitur. ID purports to be science. This article addresses the scientific basis for that claim, as the note to editors says: "This article uses scientific terminology." Your suggestion is to abandon that. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
:"theory in the ordinary sense" is a non sequitur. ID purports to be science. This article addresses the scientific basis for that claim, as the note to editors says: "This article uses scientific terminology." Your suggestion is to abandon that. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
::Felonious, why is "theory in the ordinary sense" a ''non sequitur''? It isn't a deductive argument or even a proposition. Now, I do think it's good to abide by scientific terminology, and I'm not saying we abandon that. But intelligent design theory is still a ''theory'' after all (even if it is not a scientific theory, and incidentally there appears to be no reason why it is not a legitimate scientific theory anyway). If you're worried about ambiguity, you can follow my suggestion, thus still preserving scientific terminology (by using the term "scientific theory") and being even more unambiguous (since not all theories are scientific). And please don't remove my comments from a Talk section again. It's disruptive and a bit rude. --[[User:Tisthammerw|Wade A. Tisthammer]] 22:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:See [[doublespeak]]. Ce n'est pas un bon idée. — [[user:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
:See [[doublespeak]]. Ce n'est pas un bon idée. — [[user:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:48, 8 December 2005
Please read before starting
Welcome to Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.
Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.
A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" and the contributors to the article have done their best to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the POV fork guidelines.
These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).
Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).
This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT.
Archives
- /Archive1 (2002-2003) – /Archive2 (2003)
- /Archive3 (Jan-Sep 2004, 53kb - Are oppositions/criticisms of ID relevant?)
- /Falsification (Aug-Oct 2004, 46kb - Is ID theory falsifiable?)
- /Archive4 (Sep-Nov 2004, 42kb - Overwhelming majority: POV? What does "scientific" mean?)
- /Scientific supernaturalism? (Nov 2004 - POV problems with claiming space for the supernatural within science)
- /Archive5 (Nov-Dec 2004) – /Archive6 (Dec 2004-early Jan 2005)
- /Archive7 (Jan 2005) – /Archive8 (Jan-April 2005) – /Archive9 (April-May 2005)
- /Archive10 (Early - Mid June 2005 - Structured debate; the Pryamid analogy; Article Splits)
- /Archive 11 – /Archive 12 – /Archive_13
- /Archive_14 (Mid-August/Mid-Sept 2005 - ID as creationism; ID proponent's religious agenda; ID as scientific hypothesis)
- /Archive_15 (Mid-Sept/Early-Oct 2005 - Computer simulations & irreducible complexity, Criticisms of criticism, Footnote misnumbering, NPOV)
- /Archive 16 (Mid-Oct 2005)
- /Archive 17 (Mid to late-Oct 2005 - Mainly involving users from uncommondescent.com and admins)
- /Archive 18 (Late Oct 2005 to early Nov 2005)
- /Archive 19 (early Nov to Mid Nov 2005)
- /Archive 20 (Mid Nov 2005) Tisthammer's and ant's objections
- /Archive 21 (November 2005) Enormous bulk of text.
- /Archive 22 (Early December) Mostly chatter concerning the current pool of editors.
In these archives,
It has been suggested in these archives,
- The following statements were discussed, not the result of the discussion.
- that neither ID nor evolution is falsifiable;
- that the article is too littered with critique, as opposed to the evolution article;
- that ID is no more debatable than evolution is;
- that ID is creationism by definition, as it posits a creator;
- that all ID proponents are theists;
- that ID is not science;
- that ID is not internally consistent;
- that the article is too long;
- that the article contains original research and inaccurately represents minority view
- that by ID's own reasoning, designer must be IC
- that a designer is needed for irreducibly complex objects
- Introduction discussion
- /Archive 21#Intro (Rare instance of unanimity)
- /Archive_21#Introduction (Tony Sidaway suggests)
- that this article is unlike others on wikipedia
Notes to editors
- This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambigious. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion', ..
Some suggestions
The talk that disappeared into Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 21 included quite an interesting discussion on Peer-reviewed articles. It's rather detailed for this article, though a link or mention would be desirable, and I suggest moving the relevant bits to a new page which could be titled Peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design.
The latest suggestions for revisions to #Origins of the term appear to be broadly acceptable, or at least not objected to, so I'll amend the article accordingly in the near future.
There's duplication between footnotes 18 and 19, so presumably the article could be slightly shortened by removing the duplicate bit from 18, and if need be linking 19 alongside links to 18 in the article. Any reason why not? ...dave souza 15:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Refactoring
These discussions have been going on for a while, and references to earlier posts are becoming more common, which reduces clarity and readabily. I would like to ask everyone to simply remake their points and to repost their sources. Quoting yourself is one thing, dismissing a question with the words: 'see my previous post' is quite another.
- It was suggested that the ID article has too much criticism, when compared to comparable articles.
- There was some discussion as to the extent to which other articles are indeed comparable: is ID perhaps unique?
- It was argued that ID is not overly criticised: if ID wanted to present itself as science, it deserved to be held to scientific standards.
- It was suggested that the current pool of editors is stagnant and conservative. A call went out for new editors.
- Several new articles were discussed, and deleted as POV forks.
- The discussion concerning the irreducible complexity of the designer implied by ID seems to have cooled down, although the section is still not to everyone's liking. (*)
-- Ec5618 18:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- The "irreducible complexity" issue has been replaced by another argument I suspect to be original research. I requested a citation of a leading ID opponent making this new argument, and so far this request has been denied. I will take your advice in remaking my point. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Lovecoconuts
Here be a long-time reader of Wikipedia but first-time poster on the discussion pages. (God, I hope I'm doing this the right way.) Since the Wikipedia article of Intelligent Design is currently the #3 link in Google, I can understand the ID people's wish that the article presents a more positive light about Intelligent Design.
However, since Intelligent Design is being presented by the ID community as a scientific theory, and since the majority of the scientific community currently disagrees with it even possessing the basic qualifications of a scientific theory - it's just simply more appropriate and honest for ID to be presented in a more or less negative light, for now.
Now, if Intelligent Design were being presented as a philosophical theory, that's another case entirely.
Yes, yes, I know it's difficult for one's favorite scientific theories to be treated so (I was quite disappointed that the Memory of Water wasn't as I hoped it would be), but that's just the way it's always been with scientific theories. It's only proper for a scientific theory to go through a scientific gauntlet.Lovecoconuts 16:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- There are many problems with this article, and yes, inexperienced or philosophically slighted editors are a major problem. In theory though, the spotlight should help this article achieve Featured article status, by calling attention to every inconsistent or unreferenced detail. -- Ec5618 19:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Lovecoconuts, your prayers have been answered, you've done it exactly the right way. Well said. ...dave souza 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Lovecoconuts, make no mistake about it: I'm not asking for ID to be presented in a more positive light. I don't want to see a more positive light or a less positive light; I just want it to be factually and impassionately presented, in a reasonable structural order. I fully expect the article to note that the mainstream scientific community does not accept ID, and show sourced references to their criticisms.
- But, my objection was in the overwhelming structural bias. Simply put, there's no reason, cause or comparison for it. Having already covered this, I am considering a variety of proposals to directly address this.Trilemma 22:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Suspected Original Research (again)
The "who designed the designer" objection is a popular one for anti-ID adherents and should be mentioned. But I do not believe original research should be mixed in here. Previously I raised questions and criticisms regarding this statement:
- the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that every complex object requires a designer
I pointed out that this was false; this was not a fundamental assumption of ID (and gave citations to support my claim), encountered stiff resistance, but eventually it was removed. Next (21 November 2005) there was this
- the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that every irreducibly complex object requires a designer
I pointed out this was false; this was not a fundamental assumption of ID (and again gave citations to support my claim), met stiff resistance, but eventually it was removed. It was replaced with this (2 December 2005):
- the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object
It has not escaped my attention that the format of the argument is very similar. Have there been prominent ID opponents who have actually made these arguments? Or are they, as I suspect, original research? In particular, let's focus on the most recent one (the one regarding specified complexity). Is this argument original research? Or can someone provide a citation of a prominent ID opponent who makes this argument?
I will admit my bias here: I do believe the argument is non sequitur. For instance, how would an uncaused designer of complex specified information (CSI) contradict the assumption that a designer is needed for CSI? We are not told, and the article gives no references of anyone making this argument. Can anyone give a citation of a prominent ID opponent making this argument? Or is the argument what I suspect it to be, original research? To the very least, can someone explain the reasoning behind this argument?
I suspect there are more cases of original research in the Wikipedia article, but for now this will do.
NOTE: Let’s put personal feelings and opinions regarding past issues aside for now and focus on the matter at hand. Is this argument original research? If not, can someone provide a citation of a leading ID opponent making this argument? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- We've been through this before. NPOV is to represent all points of view. All means all. NPOV is non-negociable. We have provided a reference to Dawkins and Coyne making that argument. I have even given you ID creationists responses to that argument. What more do you want? — Dunc|☺ 22:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- He want's it out altogether. Wade Tisthammer has been hammering away at this subsection of the article with his objections now for about a month, and all he's accomplished has been to make it the most heavily cited and supported content in the article. By my count he's raised specific objections to 4 different sentences being original research. And each time, they were shown not to be original research and remain in the article, now just with supporting cites. Just because content was slightly rewritten is not proof that his objections have any merit; he shouldn't assume it is. In the course of responding to his objections, more revelant and recent arguments were found. This particular subsection now sports 9 supporting cites. That's 9 cites for 3 paragraphs. The sentence now in question is already supported by two cites.
- His repeated droning on about the article's verfiability is disruptive. His objections have not brought quality to this article or to Wikipedia, but mayhem. He's already filled two archived page with specious reasonings based on his own original research, we needn't sit by while he disrupts this page as well. If other reasonable editors find the these supporting cites to be insufficient, they are welcome to add additional cites. But it is not a valid a justification for removing credible, relevant content, which has always been Wade Tisthammer's central demand and why we are yet once again having to respond to him. FeloniousMonk 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Additional suggestion from Wade (moved)
In regard to the note above to use scientific terms properly, Wade suggests:
I think the problem can be solved by using the word “theory” to mean “theory” in the ordinary sense and “scientific theory” to mean a theory the “scientific” sense. Ambiguity resolved. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- "theory in the ordinary sense" is a non sequitur. ID purports to be science. This article addresses the scientific basis for that claim, as the note to editors says: "This article uses scientific terminology." Your suggestion is to abandon that. FeloniousMonk 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- See doublespeak. Ce n'est pas un bon idée. — Dunc|☺ 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- But it would have the neat side-effect of allowing ID to be called a "theory (not scientific)" while it's scientific basis is highly disputed. I don't think so. FeloniousMonk 22:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)