Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
::::::Are there sources (rabbinic or otherwise) that are off-limits here? Just asking.[[User:Davidbena|Davidbena]] ([[User talk:Davidbena|talk]]) 01:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC) |
::::::Are there sources (rabbinic or otherwise) that are off-limits here? Just asking.[[User:Davidbena|Davidbena]] ([[User talk:Davidbena|talk]]) 01:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Until you have a specific source for a specific purpose, it's impossible to answer that. Until then, it might be worth reading up on [[WP:RS]]. –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 01:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC) |
:::::::Until you have a specific source for a specific purpose, it's impossible to answer that. Until then, it might be worth reading up on [[WP:RS]]. –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 01:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::::I am well-aware of [[Wp:RS]], and I do happen to know many rabbis that hold PhD degrees in philosophy, and who have published many works in universities. Since no one is willing to answer my question, I take it to mean that such an entry is not altogether forbidden to use here, and will be left to the discretion of the contributing editors whether the edit is allowed to remain or not.[[User:Davidbena|Davidbena]] ([[User talk:Davidbena|talk]]) 01:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:58, 22 October 2019
![]() | Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 |
Philosophy sources |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Intelligent design versus simulation hypothesis
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is not a forum, I know, and I don’t want to get into an argument. However, since the “simulation hypothesis” would seem to be an example of intelligent design why isn’t that labeled as “pseudoscience” whereas intelligent design in general, i.e., this article’s subject, is? That seems rather arbitrary, after all, not to mention biased. It would seem whom exactly it is speculated did the creating makes all the difference, I presume. Still, whether God or humans (or other intelligent temporal beings) did the creating would seem irrelevant as to the result. In both cases, our reality was created and designed by an outside intelligent agency; hence, intelligent design.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yup, and this problem isn't ours to fix. See WP:RGW. We follow the WP:RS/AC of WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that's all. "Theory of evolution=atheism" is an old canard, e.g. the Catholic Church isn't atheistic, but generally speaking it accepts evolution. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Tgeorgescu is right, we rely on the judgment of mainstream scholarship to determine what is or is not pseudoscience. It is not an example of intelligent design because it does not argue that there is evidence of a designer. Intelligent design is not the theory that the world was created by a designer but the pseudoscientific theory that there is empirical evidence to prove it. TFD (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- In particular, that there is something fatally flawed in evolutionary biology. The supposed failure of evolution is taken to be the evidence for ID. TomS TDotO (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The replies above are good and address the point for this talk page, namely that articles follow reliable sources. However, the question can be answered. ID is pseudoscience because its proponents really believe that ID is an explanatory theory that replaces evolution and, depending on flavor, other sciences such as geology. By contrast, the simulation hypothesis is, well, a hypothesis where consenting adults brainstorm ideas from fiction authors. When a movement claims that the universe really is simulated and that evolution is bogus, then sources might label it as pseudoscience. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- To refine that a little, ID is pseudoscience because it's theology and religious belief (reworded to avoid direct references to God) presented with the claims that it's science, indeed that science must be redefined to accommodate the religious belief. The simulation hypothesis doesn't doesn't appear to make these claims. . . dave souza, talk 10:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- The driving impetus of creationist intelligent design can be described in a nutshell as: “There are simply too many—indeed an astronomical amount—seeming coincidences that render life as we know it possible to actually be coincidences.” (if anyone is an accountant or familiar with the field’s jargon, think of the word “plugged.”) This is an example of inductive reasoning. What is the impetus behind our reality being a computer simulation? If not the same logic, then what? What is the evidence and reasoning? By the way, the validity of Darwinian evolution is a bit of a red herring. One might accept evolution as totally compatible with intelligent design.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- The driving impetus of creationist intelligent design is religious and political: a disingenuous attempt to provide a "scientific" basis to justify including the teaching of creationism, or creationism-adjacent material in US public schools, distancing that material from religious dogma. See Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Specific_potential_perjury.
- Were it not for that background, intelligent design would be an obscure corner of philosophy or theological ontology. Framing this as strictly a logical evaluation of theories ignores the history of it, amounting to a contextomy. You're right; this is not a forum. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I fail to see how motivations are relevant to my point. If, for the sake of argument, the simulation hypothesis is correct, then so is intelligent design. In that eventuality, creationist intelligent design adherents would have arrived at the correct basic conclusion, albeit for the wrong reason (wrong creator).HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- P.S., Yes, it is not a forum. It is a venue to discuss improvements in the article. Calling intelligent design “pseudoscience.” but not the simulation hypothesis, is against Wiki’s bias policy. The only reason I’ve seen offered for this seemingly blatant hypocrisy is argument from authority, which, ironically, Wiki has an article on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) in which such is characterized as a “fallacy.” If one would heed today the medical establishment of Lister’s time, then surgeons wouldn’t even need to wash their hands before operating.
- I fail to see how motivations are relevant to my point. If, for the sake of argument, the simulation hypothesis is correct, then so is intelligent design. In that eventuality, creationist intelligent design adherents would have arrived at the correct basic conclusion, albeit for the wrong reason (wrong creator).HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- The driving impetus of creationist intelligent design can be described in a nutshell as: “There are simply too many—indeed an astronomical amount—seeming coincidences that render life as we know it possible to actually be coincidences.” (if anyone is an accountant or familiar with the field’s jargon, think of the word “plugged.”) This is an example of inductive reasoning. What is the impetus behind our reality being a computer simulation? If not the same logic, then what? What is the evidence and reasoning? By the way, the validity of Darwinian evolution is a bit of a red herring. One might accept evolution as totally compatible with intelligent design.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- In that light, I propose that at the very least instead of factually stating that intelligent design is pseudoscience, it be noted that it is described as such by many within the scientific community. I see this as a very moderate and reasoned compromise. The assertion of pseudoscience is indeed a fact; the validity of that assertion is not necessarily. Thus, the former should be represented within the article by way of objectivity as opposed to the latter.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Your concern is noted.
Calling intelligent design “pseudoscience.” but not the simulation hypothesis, is against Wiki’s bias policy. The only reason I’ve seen offered for this seemingly blatant hypocrisy is argument from authority...
Notice that accusations of hypocrisy feature prominently in whataboutism. It's been noted above that the simulation hypothesis is speculation, and fodder for science fiction plots. I also notice some open-ended philosophical questions in its Wikipedia article. I must have missed the part where it is claimed to lead to any kind of robust scientific theory. Intelligent design, on the other hand, relies heavily on an argument from ignorance, and on its target audience's difficulty imagining or understanding the depth of geological time. Arguments in favor of ID often equivocate "random" and "haphazard" in discussing mutations and their propagation, again relying on the target audience's credulity. - I think it's time to hat this discussion. If I weren't involved, I'd do it myself. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Your concern is noted.
- In that light, I propose that at the very least instead of factually stating that intelligent design is pseudoscience, it be noted that it is described as such by many within the scientific community. I see this as a very moderate and reasoned compromise. The assertion of pseudoscience is indeed a fact; the validity of that assertion is not necessarily. Thus, the former should be represented within the article by way of objectivity as opposed to the latter.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Locked???
Locking the page just proves the Creationist point that Wikipedia is biased. Unlock please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.226 (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- The page is not locked. It is only semi-protected. This is because this page has been a frequent target for vandalism and other unconstructivee editing in the past, much of it from IP users. The page can be edited by any auto-confirmed user, which only requires that you have an account at least four days old and have made at least ten previous edits. You can get more information about page protection by clicking the lock icon at the top of the page. If anyone thinks Wikipedia is "biased" in favour of mainstream, verifiable science, they are correct. It's hardly a secret. PepperBeast (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, protecting the page is only a necessity imposed by modern realities of inciviltude. But it is true, Wikipedia is very much biased towards what is verifiable. It's a core concept. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- So there, it’s not bias, it’s paranoia. And control issues. ;-). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you. There is an organized group that wishes to replace science with religious pseudoscience on Wikipedia, and this page is one of their main targets. As for bias, Yes. We are biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hardly a paranoia, as lacking the elements of delusion and irrationality often seen in clinical paranoia. Possibly a "control issue", as we "fear" that idiots, vandals, and others will track in crap if we leave the door wide-open. Do you leave your doors open at night?
- By the way (lest anyone gets excited about finding an admission of guilt): the last bit of Guy's message is a wikilink. Click on it and read on. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Arguing "for" or "against" ID from a pure scientific approach
It is my understanding that editors are severely limited in their scope of argumentation whenever presenting pure "facts" based strictly upon science, and which same "facts" are expected to lead to any just conclusion, one way or the other, as to whether our universe points to "Intelligent Design," as there is just not enough scientific evidence available out there that will explain, for example, "natural" or "supernatural" phenomena, such as why some creatures are made to emit a scent that wards-off would-be attackers, although the creature itself had no way of knowing what scent would be offensive or not to its attacker. My question is rather plain: Does logic fall under the category of "science" or "pseudo-science" when trying to ascertain whether or not our world and all lifeforms point to ID? After all, logic is used extensively by scientists, as well as by philosophers. If, let's say, simple logic falls under neither category of science or pseudo-science, can it be used here in this article, that is, when it is supported by reliable, published sources, and those not necessarily written by scientists? Or are we as editors strictly limited to "proven scientific methods" when trying to ascertain the viability of ID? If the latter, isn't it fair to say that the unknown is far greater than the known in our world of science, and that, based on painstaking methods of scientific analysis and testing, we can still say that science has yet to solve or understand all the mysteries of our universe, and which can only lead us to conclude that from a mere scientific perspective the question of ID remains largely unresolved? Just asking here for clarification and to know what are the "legal" parameters here for acceptable editing in this very complex field. The subject, needless to say, has always interested me, and I would enjoy contributing to this article if given the opportunity to do so from a position of logic. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: You've missed the point of this site entirely. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We don't engage in original arguments or personal analysis of the sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- That, and when proponents of Intelligent Design do, one day, after 20 plus something years after having proposed it, finally bother to find some way to demonstrate both how Intelligent Design is science, and how to do science with Intelligent Design, rather than use it to deceive people about science, logic and biology in order to shoehorn religion propaganda into science curricula, please inform us immediately so we can modify accordingly.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- But you have evaded my question. Forget the "proponents of ID." Even science, to my knowledge, has yet to come-up with all the answers. Will you not agree with me here? In this case, it's a no-win situation all around, no matter what side you are on. It is plain that even by taking the "pure scientific approach," we are still left with many unresolved questions. To be fair to our readers, shouldn't this be pointed out? No one has all the answers to the big question. Still, this should not prevent us from searching. Am I not correct?Davidbena (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, no, you misunderstood me. I never intended to engage in Original Research, but to cite published material that speaks on this subject from a pure logical point-of-view, and not necessarily written by scientists. Is this permitted here?Davidbena (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's very hard to answer when speaking in hypotheticals. If you have something in mind, then by all means, please suggest it. Otherwise, this is all too vague. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- In laymen's terms, is it still permitted to make use here, i.e. "cite", an academic, mainstream journal that approaches the subject of ID from a position of pure logic (i.e. without scientific analysis) to suggest the probability of our universe coming into existence because of a rational being (Yes or No?), or will such a source be rejected on grounds that it does not approach the subject from conventional scientific methods of analysis? (Yes or No?)Davidbena (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, what source do you have in mind? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Are there sources (rabbinic or otherwise) that are off-limits here? Just asking.Davidbena (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Until you have a specific source for a specific purpose, it's impossible to answer that. Until then, it might be worth reading up on WP:RS. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I am well-aware of Wp:RS, and I do happen to know many rabbis that hold PhD degrees in philosophy, and who have published many works in universities. Since no one is willing to answer my question, I take it to mean that such an entry is not altogether forbidden to use here, and will be left to the discretion of the contributing editors whether the edit is allowed to remain or not.Davidbena (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Until you have a specific source for a specific purpose, it's impossible to answer that. Until then, it might be worth reading up on WP:RS. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Are there sources (rabbinic or otherwise) that are off-limits here? Just asking.Davidbena (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, what source do you have in mind? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- In laymen's terms, is it still permitted to make use here, i.e. "cite", an academic, mainstream journal that approaches the subject of ID from a position of pure logic (i.e. without scientific analysis) to suggest the probability of our universe coming into existence because of a rational being (Yes or No?), or will such a source be rejected on grounds that it does not approach the subject from conventional scientific methods of analysis? (Yes or No?)Davidbena (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's very hard to answer when speaking in hypotheticals. If you have something in mind, then by all means, please suggest it. Otherwise, this is all too vague. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- That, and when proponents of Intelligent Design do, one day, after 20 plus something years after having proposed it, finally bother to find some way to demonstrate both how Intelligent Design is science, and how to do science with Intelligent Design, rather than use it to deceive people about science, logic and biology in order to shoehorn religion propaganda into science curricula, please inform us immediately so we can modify accordingly.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)