What is this obsession with Ann Coulter? He seems to be using the same bullying tactics (surprise surprise), but does anyone understand the issue better? Dunc|☺ 22:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Benapgar's altering of the evidence section
Benapgar altered the Evidence section [1], striking out the times, dates of the evidence and adding his comments/responses to it. I've reverted it as this section is reserved for presenting evidence, not responding to it. Benapgar can re-add his comments and responses to the evidence presented in the "Response" section, which is there for his use.
This is an example to Benapgar's general unfamiliarity combined with his aggressive editing style that prompted this RFC in the first place. FeloniousMonk 23:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I copy and pasted in the wrong place and thought I was editing in my own space. Keep your pants on. I already had SlimVirgin come on my talk page and say she was going to block me. GET A GRIP. Did you even notice I already set up a "Response to individual evidence section IN MY OWN SECTION? Nothing wrong with reverting and telling me not to do it, but this is ridiculous. Ben 01:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Ec5618
- Since there is no place for me to post this on the main RFC page, I'll do it here.
- Ben has stated on this page that: A short while later, Ec5618 reverted again simply saying both he and FM disagreed and that "the last post was hardly clinching.".
- I'd like to clarify: I did this for the simple reason that the edit in question was being discussed, and no course of action had been agreed upon. Adding a disputed statement to an article is hardly a wise or constructive thing to do.
- He also states that FeloniousMonk had told him to "learn to abide by consensus,"
- FeloniousMonk may be making a general statement about he basic principles of the Wiki, and I agree with it atleast. Edits are made to the article by consensus. A simple edit may be implemented without discussion. Either someone disagrees, and will revert, or the edit will remain and concensus will be in favour of the edit. A greater edit should be discussed prior to implementation (which Ben neglected to do) and consensus should be abided by.
- An important point here may be that consensus can be shaped. By assuming that no-one was willing to listen to his arguments, Ben chose to ignore te concept of consensus editing, and made a controversial edit. Had he tried to explain his motives better, he might have found an ally or two.
- I don't care for this quarrel. In my view, Ben is trying to do too much, too fast, and is a smart aleck. Throwing policy around, citing ownership, and things like 'Wikipedia is not a chatroom', and seeking arbitration for a dispute with a single editor, less than two weeks after becoming an editor. This is rash.
- The most amazing thing is that Ben seems to trying to make a single point, but as yet I've no idea what it is. Nor, to be frank, do I feel intirely compelled to try to re-read his posts to find out. Ben has been coarse and disruptive. -- Ec5618 00:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
POV
comment to address BenAveling's confusion as to how the intro as written by Benapgar is POV: ID does not meet criteria for scientific theory. Anyone who refers to ID as a theory is either a POV ID proponent, or ignorant of the criteria. If you, or Benapgar, are unclear on scientific theory, perhaps it would help to read Theory (especially the first paragraph under "Science") Second comment: although Dunc's actions are outside the purview of this rfc, I concur that calling someone "a lowly troll" is hardly a shining example of behavior. KillerChihuahua 11:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say "scientific theory" for a reason, I just said "theory". Specified complexity, a major and key component is a theory. One might even argue that that particular theory is indeed scientific†, but I didn't want to get into that. "Intelligent Design" is not scientific because it is so undefined. The separate components should be taken on their own merit. Trying to characterize "ID" in general when you have no base to work from, like Dembski's book, or The Discovery Institute's concept of it, is not going to work.
Let's just say specified complexity theory, right or wrong, is really a good theory, and, right or wrong, falls within the means of the evaluation of the scientific method‡. This is why people get angry when you say "ID" isn't scientific, because if the previous part is true than it is, and why they also get angry when you say "ID" is scientific, because of other aspects which aren't.
† As long as one does not include the excess definition included on the article's page about Dembski's unscientific corallaries, it is pretty much mathematics, right or wrong. An example would be his Law of Conservation of Information. Personally I don't think it is scientific. I think he has made some a priori assumptions which render the theory, as applied physics rather than mathematics, unprovable and possibly useless not to mention other things like subjective definitions. And now that I've looked more closely, it seems he has not even got the maths right. Still, saying "My theory is that 2 + 2 = 5 and because of this gravity goes up" is still a theory which falls within the evaluation of the scientific method. Adding "and because of that God exists" does not.
‡ I know this does not make it a "scientific theory", try to stay with me here.
--Ben 14:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- In any case, consensus is that calling ID, or anything related to it, a theory, is confusing and ambiguous. The article uses scientific terminology. Often, people say: "Well, Evolution is just a theory, as is ID", obviously completely missing the point. Calling it a concept, assertion, belief, ideology, field, notion, etcetera is less confusing.
- Please note also that the article currently does not state that ID is unscientific, only that it fails to meet the criteria of science (a point admitted by IDists) and that it is often seen as unscientific by large bodies of scientific thought.
- And of course, it's possible that some aspects of ID could be classified as scientific, by which I mean that it's not out of question. -- Ec5618 14:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- as Ec5618 notes, the article uses scientific terminology - the use of "theory" would imply "scientific theory". To avoid that, non-confusing terminology such as "assertion" is preferable. Further, in your footnote (which I may have misread as to who the source for this is) is the following: "My theory is that 2 + 2 = 5 and because of this gravity goes up" is still a theory which falls within the evaluation of the scientific method." No, it isn't. See Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories for clarification. KillerChihuahua 16:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- But this is completely the opposite complaint that people normally have, that people like Creation scientists like to point out that "evolution is only a theory." This is having it both ways. The proper dictionary definition of theory is fine in my opinion. As for my footnote, now you are misinterpreting what theory means. I didn't say that that is a scientific theory (see my next footnote), I said it is a "theory which falls within the evaluation of the scientific method". The scientific method in this case would say "gravity does not go up so the theory is false," or "2 + 2 = 5 is false so the theory is false," or "you have not proven any relationship between mathematics and gravity, so the theory is not conclusive." Surely you know that a "theory which falls within the evaluation of the scientific method" is not considered the same as a "scientific theory." If you want, just completely ignore the footnote. I thought it would help, apparently it didn't. --Ben 20:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know what complaints "people normally have" and that is not germane.
- What is "having it both ways"? What way, and what other way, could you possibly mean? Please clarify, I find your assertion unclear.
- What "proper dictionary definition" of theory, and what possible difference could it ever make? We've already said, multiple times, that as the article uses a great deal of scientific terminology, "theory" as a word would tend to indicate scientific theory and other words are preferable. This is the consensus. That some other use of the word theory is fine with you is irrelevant. I do not say this lightly or with any intent to insult, but consensus matters here. This has been endlessly discussed and consensus is clear.
- As for your footnote, I stated clearly that I found it confusing and offered a disclaimer that I might be misreading it. With that said, it is hard to see how I could have been misrepresenting anything.
- I'm not discussing the scientific method. You are tangentializing this. I was discussing the use of the word theory in the article. If you wish to discuss scientific method with someone, please find someone else.
- Consider the footnote, which I did find confusing to say the least, ignored from here on out. KillerChihuahua 21:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
See these articles: Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers and this one Is Evolution "Just a Theory"? There are lots more if you need them. If you want to look around yourself just search for "evolution is a theory"--Ben 01:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
A previous encounter
I've previously encountered Ben on the climate pages. He was easily offended (basically he took offence once and never recovered) and whilst keen to contribute (by reorganising all the climate articles) had no real substance to contribute. His lasting monument was Climate forcing, which he created despite opposition, and which (before getting redirected) ended up as [2] and Ben was obliged to add the comment Note: This Wikipedia article is a work in progress. Some terms may be misrepresented to the start. This isn't the way to do things. I'll skip over his unhelpful comments at my RFC and other stuff.
In summary: really needs to find something that he actually knows about to edit on, and be less brittle.
William M. Connolley 22:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC).
- Same old condescending bastard "needs to find something that he actually knows about to edit on". Thanks. Yes I am here and reading your comment, surprise surprise. How are the climate pages going these days? Wikiproject still stalled? And are you still re-directing climate forcing to radiative forcing? They aren't the same thing at all, you know. Maybe you should realize there is more to climate than just the current warming trend. And good luck getting your "Intelligent Design in Europe" section added in, maybe a taste of your own medicine will do you some good. Or maybe I can help you get it in just by mentioning it here.
- p.s. to readers, what I was railing about (that "global warming" is ambiguous and something like "climate change" should be used instead) was something I clearly cited. A Government Canada site run by a PhD climatologist just like Connolley. Well, almost just like Connolley, since this climatologist participated in the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, unlike Connolley. I make no secret that things like knowledge representation, ontology and semantics really get my goat. I even did the same thing on the Classical music page, but since there was noone acting as owner there, I just added in a small change. The long running dispute about whether or not it should re-direct to European classical music is now, for all intents and purposes, over, since it is clear why people think one way or the other, and it is clear to the reader why the article content is what it is. Please check it out.--Ben 01:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- p.p.s the reason I said that "some terms may be misrepresented" is because while I understood the basic concepts involved, I wasn't sure which terms referred to which concepts and exactly how they were related. The terms are used pretty ambiguously, but the concepts are there. Connolley doesn't know what "climate forcing" is either, that or he simply left me to flounder because he's a jackass. "climate forcing" 159,000 hits, [3] (without quotes) 4,230,000 hits. Ben 01:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)