Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:36, 7 January 2009

This redirect is the #1 google result for the search "origin of life". Therefore, I have reset the redirect to point simply to the Abiogenesis article, rather than the "spontaneous generation" section itself. --Ryan Delaney 22:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

This article can be expanded by so much, with pictures of the people and experiments that disproved SG. I can't remember much of it any more, but there were some brilliant ideas about how to prove that non-life didn't produce life. There are plenty of books out there, but I will leave it for those in the know to chase this one. As we build on this article, we can make a useful reduction in the size of SG in the abiogenesis article.

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The link in the one reference currently in this article covers the topic in excellent detail, and I'm currently working on getting some english translations of Pasteur's work. I've seen illustrations of the various experiments done that have certainly fallen into public domain. -Verdatum (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Category

What category should we place this in? It's not a currently held Category:Theory, and it's not Category:Pseudoscience (because it was testable and hence Pasteur and others could falsify it. It's the first example I remember learning about in science class (many decades ago) in which a long-held scientific idea was tested and discarded.

How about Category:History of science? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've put it in Category:Obsolete biological theories. Novangelis (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm consistantly amazed by the exacting categories out there. Can't get any more accurate than this one, well done. -Verdatum (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Extracting from and reducing the abiogenesis article

We have made great progress here in creating this article and expanding it. Now would someone who can assess the science please take the opportunity to extract anthing else we want from the SG section in the Abiogenesis article, then reduce that article to a brief summary, since part of the reason for creating this article was to take pressure off the oversized ab article. At present the section there is still about as big as this article.

My last expansion was written to put a framework onto the article and add some references. Redi's summary of the beliefs about the origin of insects is good, but getting the appropriate sources he discussed would be better. The ancient beliefs section should become the heart of the article, not it's demise. Ancient beliefs might eventually become "Ancient beliefs in Western culture" and other cultures' beliefs about generation of life, which were not part of what is refuted in "Scientific method", might be added. Pneuma and vital heat warrant far more discussion.Novangelis (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

We should have pictures/photos/diagrams of the people, subjects and experiments e.g. :

Aristotle, Pasteur, rats, flies, Pasteurs equipment.

The relevant works are public domain, but the translations, reprints and photos may not be. I would have dropped then in if I knew I had a public domain image. A picture of Pasteur's swan neck flask would add so much more over my feeble description. Novangelis (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Found it on commons, the trick was Googling Pasteur and the French word for Swan, Cygne. I also found a really lovely illustration for auction from here, but I'm curious if a higher resolution image of the same source could be found. -Verdatum (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The swan-necked picture is a good start though I seem to recall the picture I saw many years ago has the swan-neck much longer, hanging down way below the level of the flask.

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Usenet is not a reliable source

I was surprised to see a reference to a usenet archive as a source. Usenet posts and other "self-published" materials are not generally considered reliable sources by wiki standards. Certainly there are more reliable sources available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.220.6 (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Usenet posts are not generally considered reliable sources, however, if you look at the reference in question, it is a good deal more than a simple usenet post. The statements made are all backed by proper references, making it viable as a secondary source of information. Also, talk.origins is a strongly moderated newsgroup with a community that appears to hold itself to high standards. (honestly, I didn't even notice that this was a usenet based article until you pointed it out). I admit, the statement in question that it is backing up might be more suitably referenced by the primary reference of a translation of Aristotle's writings. I mostly used that particular reference as a sort of a bookmark to the article, without going so far as to put it in an external links section. As I briefly mentioned in a previous discussion thread, I've found it's one of the best compiled sources regarding this topic available online, and it's an excellent starting point to look for sources appropriate to expand this article. -Verdatum (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the information seems to be correct, as far as we know and the source is semi-OK, it will do for the present, but it would be better find a rock-solid source on-line if it exists, in due course.

IceDragon64 (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle did not invent the theory of abiogenesis

The theory MASSIVELY outdates Aristotle, it goes back to the presocratics, and in the form of myths on creation goes as far back as human thought on the origin of species itself. This is a terrible article, everyone involved should be banned for spreading misinformation. Magneticstokbrokingpetdetective —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC).

Calm down my friend, one query doesn't make a terrible article! If you can find any evidence to back this claim about Aristotle etc. then make it and we will adjust the article. Conversely, would someone be kind enough to put the relevent reference about Aristotle into inline refs please, then do the same for the other key parts of the article, since it seems the subject may be more controversial than we thought. Thank you.

IceDragon64 (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are as many different theories on the origin of life as there are people who have ever existed. This article is about spontaneous generation which is specifically defined as the theory put forth by Aristotle, whether he invented it or not. I'm trying to find the line "The theory of abiogenesis was invented by Aristotle" or equivalent in this article with no success. From what I see, all this article claims is that Aristotle had a theory, and then goes on to describe it based on his writings. Also, I direct Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective to read Misplaced Pages:SOFIXIT (AKA WP:BOLD). -Verdatum (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Aristotle was summarizing many different people's ideas, as far as someone who specifically wrote down what all Greeks believed about Spontaneous generation before Aristotle, you could start with Empedocles, there are many more. What makes this error all the more appalling is that Aristotle actually cited his sources so there an be no excuse. Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective

I'm contemplating just wiping all the text from the page to halt the spread of false information until an edit with correct information is ready. Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

I deleted just the parts about Aristotle because they are simply completely wrong. Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

Please sign comments with four tildes (~~~~). All the article states is that the theory is attributed to Aristotle. This does not mean he invented it. It does not mean he came up with it. It does not mean anything beyond the fact that reliable sources, when asked, "to whom do you attribute the theory refered to as 'spontaneous generation'?" they reply "Aristotle". Perhaps this is related to the classical education movement or the relationship between the Roman Catholic curch and Aristotle at the time the theory was first being disproven, but the statements in the article still appear to be verifiable and true.

More importantly, when people talk about disproving spontaneous generation, the touchstone for definition they go by is the one that is stated (summarizing others or not) by Aristotle.

You claim that the content on Aristotle is false. If the statements are false, they are either incorrectly summarizing the sources given, or the sources given are incorrect. If feel the case is the former, then fix it to match the sources given. If you feel the latter is the case, then burden of proof is upon you to show, by pointing to sources of your own, what is wrong with the sources given. Personally I'm still confused about which phrases exactly you believe to be completely false.

To quote policy, "Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth". It is the readers' responsibility to review the sourced content for anything on Misplaced Pages, there is no need to save anyone who allows the spread of false information by believing, "well gee, if I read it on Misplaced Pages, then it must be true!". As a short-term compromise, instead of deleting the content, you may wish to consider one of a number of templates that can be found at Misplaced Pages:Template_messages/Cleanup. Removing the content altogether makes it more difficult to attract additional parties to enter the discussion to form WP:Concensus. -Verdatum (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

'Attributed to', in this context means 'the consensus is that he invented the concept', don't equivocate with me. Aristotle was only one of many ancient writers, as I've said he cited his sources as he always gave a brief history of philosophical thought on the subject he was talking about before giving his own theory, so there is no excuse for the false claims made in this article. I've already given you the name of Empedocles, that refutes the information in the article. Taking the false parts of the article down does not impede progress as all the information that was there is still there in the edit history, it just stops the spread of false information and prevents Misplaced Pages being known as an unreliable source. I'm taking down the same piece again. Do not revert it again, edit it if you like with correct information, but do not revert the false information. Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective

Dictionary: attribute

 (ə-trĭb'yūt) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary tr.v., -ut·ed, -ut·ing, -utes.

  1. To relate to a particular cause or source; ascribe: attributed their failure to a lack of preparation.
  2. To regard as the work of a specified agent, place, or time: attributed the painting to Titian; attributed the vase to 18th-century Japan.

n. at·tri·bute (ăt'rə-byūt')

  1. A quality or characteristic inherent in or ascribed to someone or something.
  2. An object associated with and serving to identify a character, personage, or office: Lightning bolts are an attribute of Zeus.
  3. Grammar. A word or phrase syntactically subordinate to another word or phrase that it modifies; for example, my sister's and brown in my sister's brown dog.

As you can see, there can be no equivocation here, don't waste any more of my time.

Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective

Whoever 'AlansJon' is, do not revert this again. All the text I deleted is false and must be deleted. Magneticstokbrokingpetdetective

You cannot claim that it all was false. If nothing else, the quote was accurate. If you want to modify the text, consider that, but "Aristotle lay the foundations of Western natural philosophy" is a sound statement. Long cut-and-paste dictionary definitions do not justify block deletions of text that is germaine. Novangelis (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is false, the section claims that Aristotle came up with the theory of Spontaneous Generation : 'Examples of the original theory, put forth by Aristotle'

'According to Aristotle's theory'

Which he didn't, and no, I definitely wouldn't agree that Aristotle lay down the foundations of Western Philosophy. Everything in that section is false and so must be deleted. We can't leave false information in an encyclopedia just because no one can write a proper article on it. That section is just out and out wrong and needs a total rewrite. Magneticstokbrokingpetdetective

If you cannot work collaboratively, do not edit. You are already in violation of the three revert rule. You are erasing block sections of text while quibbling over details.Novangelis (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem working collaboratively whatsoever, you have just decided that you want incorrect information to be put up on wikipedia, and like any conscientious wikipedean I won't allow that. If you want to write a correct section on what the ancients believe, go ahead, but do not revert false information.

And you are lying when you say I am quibbling over small details, I am not. Everything in that section that is relevant to this article is wrong. Magneticstokbrokingpetdetective —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC).