Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:12, 27 October 2015

Archives
Archive 1 (December 2012 – May 2013)
Archive 2 (June 2013 – August 2013)
Archive 3 (September 2013 – December 2013)
Archive 4 (January 2014 – April 2014)
Archive 5 (May 2014 – July 2014)
Archive 6 (August 2014 – April 2015)
Archive 7 (May 2015 – )

Science - Metaphysics - Intelligent Design

User:I am One of Many, pursuant to our discussion on the Talk-page of Intelligent design, allow me to address the issues that you raised there. First, Intelligent design (ID) theory is not a specious argument, but rather a theory with merits of its own. Proponents of this theory do not necessarily push the theological aspects behind the theory, just as we can see by the way this article, , presents Einstein's view of "randomness" in our universe, and where its author, Vasant Natarajan, cleverly explains Einstein's position on ID without having to admit that Einstein was bent on theism. He says, rather, that Einstein believed in mathematical laws of nature, which he equated as being something that was put there in nature by the "unknown," call-it by whatever name that might be. But, again, that is not my point here, when I come to suggest changes for this WP article. I only wish to see a more neutral point-of-view represented here, and one that treats the theory with due respect, just as in all the online articles one finds on the Internet, as well as on Misplaced Pages's foreign languages: French, German, Italian, Hebrew, etc. I have made proposals with the view that we can reach some compromise here. As for what you said about "Science is not metaphysics," that is incorrect. Much of Quantum mechanics theory has to do with the metaphysical, and, yet, it is treated as a science. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is you apparently have no idea what science is. The ID has nothing to do with science. It is not testable. There is no empirical experiment that you could conceive of that would lead you to reject ID and become an atheist. The interpretation you provide of Einstein's are simply wrong. Do you see any distinction between testable theories such quantum mechanics, theory of relativity, and non-testable theories such as ID?--I am One of Many (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not all theories should be judged as being able to be "falsifiable" is, in itself, a philosophical view-point, espoused by Karl Popper in his empirical falsification theory. It is not my place to make judgments on his theory here, and, for certain, his words may be subjected to scrutiny just as any other theory. Still, ID theory is not made subject to, nor is it dependent upon Popper's theory of "falsification." Besides, any theory that has moved from "theory" to "proven-fact" can no longer be falsified. Or, for a better way of putting it, the ID theory, whose plausibility is made all the more convincing by the flaws and inconsistencies in the only other alternative (viz. Darwin's theory of random evolution), is worthy of our commendation. Darwin himself said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (see: The Origin of Species, Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979 , p. 219). Science has so-far never found an unbroken chain of fossil evidence of the same evolving species. It is only a theory with no evidence.

So, getting back to basics, WP:NPOV states: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." The ID article is in dire need of neutrality - whether by writers who subscribe to Popper's empirical falsification theory or not. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that you are acting in good faith and I hope you realize that I am also acting in good faith (as well as the other editors who have commented your assertions). You should take a step back and reflect whether you really have an understanding of what science is. Scientific theories are never proven by evidence. The strongest claim we can assert about a scientific theory is that it is the best theory we have now for predicting/explaining phenomena within a given domain. Since all scientific theories are testable and potentially falsifiable, they all can be refuted or replaced. This includes quantum mechanics. ID is not a scientific theory in this sense, it is rather a metaphysical/religious theory. The ID article on Misplaced Pages is about ID as a claim scientific theory. From this point of view, it is pseudoscience. Now, all the sources you have provided are not scientifically reputable. They are not published in leading scientific journals and they have not been reviewed by reputable scientists. Finally, let me ask you a question. Under what conditions would you admit that you are wrong? Keep in mind that some of the editors that you have been discussing these issues with are domain experts in some of these areas of dispute. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:I am One of Many, you say: "Scientific theories are never proven by evidence." That is also untrue. Some theories, such as Einstein's theory about the deflection of light (which he arrived at while working on his theory of general relativity) was later proven correct by science, through the development of larger telescopes. As for what you say about ID not being a scientific theory, but only a metaphysical/religious theory," if a metaphysical theory is its true name there can be nothing wrong with that, so long as scientific methods and principles are being used to determine whether or not it proves an intelligent designer. Religion, however, is not necessarily an issue here, as some ID proponents see themselves as being Theistic evolutionists, who see little or no evidence of God in nature, but hold only to the idea that some force had willfully set our spheres and planet in motion, although life evolved from a primordial cell. WP does not only require sources that have been published in "scientific journals," but makes do also with books published by Professors of major universities, such as Dr. Elliott Sober who cites the views of ID, and Dr. Michael Behe, among others. My wife's uncle is a nuclear physicist here, in Israel, who served also as Israel's Minister of Science & Technology, and he holds to the ID theory. You asked to what degree would I admit that I am wrong. I will only say here that our purpose here shouldn't be to try to convince others about who is right and who is wrong, but rather, show the divergent views, and let our readers decide for themselves. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the reason you persist is that you really do misunderstand what science is about. The general theory of relativity has never been proven (in the sense of established with certainty). It has been supported by all experimental observations. But, no matter how much evidence we have, no theory is proven by the evidence. I'm not sure if you are claiming that Elliott Sober supports ID, but if so that would rise to the level of deliberate misinformation, since there is no possibility of mistaking his position. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Elliott Sober gives more of an objective coverage of the divergent views (ID vs. evolution) than does the current article on WP. Again, I have read where science has proved one of Einstein's theories correct, namely, the theory that he advanced about how light travels, and which was unknown for sure at the time when Einstein put forth his theory --- independent, in some ways, of Einstein's theory of relativity. I can see that instead of concentrating on the issues proposed by me for improving the WP article, you're making a lot of wild guesses about me.Davidbena (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Any wild guesses I may have made about you were based solely on what your have written. I have simply been trying to show you what science is and is not. From what you have said, it appears that for you believe that good scientific claims are proven (by deduction I presume) and testability is not essential for a scientific theory. I had hoped to clear this up by pointing out the misunderstandings you have about science, I now see that that is not possible. I hope you at least consider the possibility that you are mistaken, and move on to more constructive pursuits. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope I'm not intruding, about scientific theories being (dis)proven see . Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That link does an excellent job of explaining modern scientific practice! --I am One of Many (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The journal of the National Academy of Sciences, while indeed a respected publication, is published by an organization not fully representative of all scientists, academics or laymen in our world, though one could easily be fooled by its name. To suggest that man cannot fully understand the complexities of our existence without accepting the views of Darwin's theory of "random" evolution (with all its flaws and errors), and that he must somehow cognitively avoid making any inferences from his observation of nature (albeit close to him), this is to belittle the intelligence of man. Even the laity, as well as those not connected with the laity, many academics and scientists, as well as philosophers (old and new), have published works worthy of our commendation relating to Intelligent design, which only begs the question, why is their view treated with disdain? Why aren't the views of Maimonides, the famous Jewish philosopher, mentioned in the article when he also wrote about Intelligent design? If an idea is true, it does not change in a thousand years. The idea can only be augmented. Are there no merits to this theory? Of course there are! Has it not been approached from a scientific and rational level? Of course it has! The current article on ID needs rewriting in its opening paragraph. Our first aim should be to define and explain the principles of ID (without bias), and only afterwards to bring-in the dissenting views, such as what may have also been published by the NAS. Let us remember that the ID theory is not only understood and adhered to by some scientists (e.g. Einstein), but by many laymen and common people as well, as if some things were self-evident. They also make-up a consensus. Nevertheless, the onus of proof does NOT rest upon their shoulders, since our aim is not to convince the public, one way or the other, who is right and who is wrong, but only to lay-forth the idea of Intelligent design, and to bring down reliable published sources that reflect that view (whether we agree with it or not), and just as the title of the article implies. I can write about Hitler's Nazi youth organization and its ideology without having to agree with that organization. It is the same principle here. Our job, as editors, is to give an open and honest description of the subject-matter, before delving into its peculiarities. The current article does exactly the opposite. It quotes four sources that allegedly call ID a "pseudoscience," but overlooks the other published sources that do not ascribe to that view. The article at the very beginning is biased, and points a negative picture at what is actually a scientific/theoretical view espoused by a vast number of people in our world.Davidbena (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your POV appears to be so overwhelming that you cannot be reasoned with. Every assertion you have made about science is false, and not surprisingly, you cannot produce any reliable sources to back them up. One thing I can state with near certainty, your POV will not be added to the Misplaced Pages ID article. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:I am One of Many, WP policy clearly states that on Talk-pages one may freely talk and not adhere to the rules of WP:POV. This is an informal chat. My views for improvement of the article have already been posted elsewhere. Still, you seem to have come into this debate with pre-conceived ideas and motives. I will wait for the mediation. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course informal chat can be carried out here. I thought that if explained in rough outlines the practice of science, you might see that your position is unreasonable, but as I see it, you are apparently unable modify your views as a result of any of the discussions you have had with me or other editors on this topic. All of your efforts at mediation will fail because you hold an untenable position with regards to Misplaced Pages policies. But do what you must do. Just be careful not to get yourself blocked for pushing this to the point of disruption. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Try to be a little more relaxed, my good friend. I will not fail, God-willing. You are new to this debate, and I suspect that you have not carefully read my arguments for ID on the ID Talk-page. That's alright. When you find the time to do that, please do. I have no harsh feelings towards you or anybody for that matter. Jews revel in debate, which you, perhaps, are not so used to seeing. But there's a limit here, as it takes-up so much of my time. What views should I modify, User:I am One of Many? To become anti-ID? To equate Intelligent design theory with Astronomy, which is real pseudoscience? No. I cannot do that. I can, however, bring down the opinions of those who hold to opposite pretensions, so that the article will be balanced. You see, our job is not to convince people, but to be impartial in our description of this one theory. If we were to all adhere closely to WP policy, as I think that I have, we can create better pages here. One of the primary rules for good editing is to abide by WP:NPOV in articles that clearly have divergent points of view. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

One more thing, User:I am One of Many. It is also worthy of pointing out the fact that the ID theory is not only a scientific argument raised by some scientists (the more notable of whom being Albert Einstein), but it is also a philosophical argument mentioned by Maimonides and by Thomas Aquinas and by Sir Isaac Newton. See also this: . Davidbena (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The argument for design is indeed an old argument, Einstein did not use the argument from design, and ID is apparently central to your religious belief system and is many things but one thing it is not and that is scientific. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So, at least from a philosophical perspective, it ought to be represented as such by those who would disagree with its theoretical-scientific nature. Can you help me press for that on the ID page? How would this look there?

Sir Isaac Newton

The immortal words of Sir Isaac Newton: “How came the bodies of animals to be contrived with so much art, and for what ends were their several parts? Was the eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?...and these things being rightly dispatch’d, does it not appear from phænomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent...?” “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Be well. Davidbena (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me suggest that the article you would like to turn the ID article into already exists here: Teleological argument. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Teleology can be another name for "Intelligent design," but its scope is too broad, while most people associate the name Intelligent design with the argument of design in our universe, whether from a philosophical or scientific-theoretical point of view. In this article there is a need for balance. That, and only that, is what I am striving for. The arguments are many in favor of the theory, and those - mind you - which have been stated by highly respected personages. Newton is just one of them, the father of modern physics. If his words seem to be too religious in nature, we can take it from Einstein's perspective, who was NOT a religious Jew.Davidbena (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:I am One of Many, as you can see by this French Misplaced Pages page on Intelligent design (French: Dessein intelligent), they give both sides of the argument, presenting the subject in a more neutral tone. They write (translated from the French): "Intelligent design is presented as a scientific theory by its promoters, but in the scientific world it is considered as a pseudoscience, for reasons that both the internal facts of biology and also epistemological criteria cannot be rectified (the proponents of intelligent design appearing to biologists as having ignored numerous arguments, the more notable of which being the falsifiability criterion of Karl Popper)..." I am, therefore, quick to admit that the WP Intelligent design article should at least attempt to show that ID is viewed differently by different folks, and that even if it were not a scientific theory, per se, it is still a philosophical question suggestive of something else beyond what is seen by our naked eye, and that some biochemists (i.e. Michael Behe) and physicists (i.e. Albert Einstein) have entertained that notion as a real possibility, given all their scientific experience.Davidbena (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi David, I think you have miss translated the French. The claim is that it is pseudoscience for both the internal facts of biology and also by epistemological criteria such as Popper's falsifiability criterion. Generally, biologist point out that supporters of Intelligent design misrepresent biological facts and do not follow scientific methodology/epistemology. To me, the lede of the French article reads more harshly against Intelligent Design than the English version. I also note, that like the English version, the French article is about the modern notion of Intelligent Design promoted by the Discovery Institute. I think like many editors here that the issues you raise really should be directed to the teleological argument/argument from design. Best. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, my French is poor. Thanks for correcting what I obviously misunderstood.Davidbena (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have since modified the translation, based on your superior knowledge of French.Davidbena (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Newton didn't know about the formation of galaxies, stars and planetary systems, that's why he said God did it. If Newton was present in 21st century, he wouldn't have said those words because we now know that all things in the universe were not designed but instead formed by the physical laws. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 06:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You are involved

Given that you are involved in the debate at Misplaced Pages:Administrators/RfC_for_BARC_-_a_community_desysopping_process I don't think it is appropriate that you are the one to reverse the closure. Please consider reverting yourself.

If you wish to dispute it then the talk page or WP:AN is a better venue. The closure discussion on the talk page basically resulted in the person intending to close it to decide not to. Chillum 19:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good point. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I almost reverting you myself but then I thought, "oh crap I am involved too!". While I think the closure was timely and a reasonable interpretation of an issue with only 59% support and serious concerns I respect that you may think otherwise. If you do wish to challenge this closure I will be sure to consider the arguments made with an open mind. Chillum 19:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I too think it is likely no consensus, but I felt the the close was a bit rushed given where it ended up. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Well the first opinion was given on July 24th, today is August 24th. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs says "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer." An alternate duration was an option but the timing of the closure was certainly within expectations.

Given that in the last 11 days there have been 3 new supports, 1 support changed to oppose and 5 other new opposes I suspect that more time would have resulted in only greater opposition.

These admin reform debates are always extensive. While I took a position contrary to yours I appreciated your input. Have a nice day. Chillum 20:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to note here, I did see that discussion, but all it seems to resolve is one person volunteering to do it alone then withdrawing, a few others volunteering to help as a panel, then the merits of that being discussed, and generally no real consensus on what action should be taken to close it. As for being rushed, participation has dwindled away, and all the new !votes in the past few days being opposes, I thought the conclusion was obvious enough to push ahead and close it. Mdann52 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Donner Party

I saw that you edited on the Donner Party and was wondering if you knew any more information about it or websites that could help me! Thank you! MissyMaeRissaShaye (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, this article is one of our best articles on Misplaced Pages. The sources in the article are excellent and if you have a Google account, you can read History of the Donner Party: A Tragedy of the Sierra Nevada for free online. Good luck! --I am One of Many (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Packerfansam

Better to continue the discussion here, I think.

The ANI, in which we both participated, was closed out in June or so with no action, based on her assurances that she understood the nature of the problems she'd occasioned, and a promise to try to stop. You'll recall that she had been removing references from articles to non-Christian religions and thought, sexual orientation, and sex generally, among other things; and while I was the one to raise this initially at ANI, it is certainly fair to say that I was not the only one to be troubled by these edits.

As the matter wrapped up, I was skeptical that she appreciated the problem (she described it along the lines of "offending one or two users") or that she'd actually quit the problematic editing, but after being characterized as "overzealous" on the point, I withdrew.

She has slowed, but certainly not quit, her POV editing. A partial list of such edits since then includes:

July 9

At Christianity, without explanation, she recast the “Criticism and apologetics” section as “Arguments and apologetics”, and removed sourced critical commentary by Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell and current Jewish and Muslim theologians, as well as a (sourced) observation by an atheist that some Bible stories may be based on myth.

July 30

At Trois-Rivières, removed without explanation the identification of a (Canadian) Liberal Party politician as “liberal”, as well as a reference to another person’s being the first Jew elected to public office in the British Empire

August 15

She erased, without comment, mention of Hugh Hefner’s attendance at the Art Institute of Chicago.

August 18

She removed proper and wikilinked mention of a notable alum who is best known (and described as) an LGBT activist.

October 15

At Ted Turner, she removed a reliably-sourced quote from Turner declaring himself to be agnostic, claiming it was “contradicted” by info elsewhere in article, when the excised information was more recent than the “contradictory” text and, indeed, nicely illustrated the point (in the source itself), which is that Turner has waffled on the issue over the years.

Here too I am not the only editor to remain concerned - see this Talk page entry from September.

I agree that the "party school" edit to the University of Wisconsin is, in the larger picture, kind of a silly thing; but between her registered account and the IP she sometimes edits from, she has made the same edit at least eight times now - see May 11, May 12, May 14, May 14, May 15, June 13 and October 3 in addition to today's. And to be clear, she's not removing the "party school" material but just the (perfectly good) citation to Playboy. Indeed in her October 3 entry, she updated the "party school" rankings to 2015 and went out and found a different source to insert in Playboy's stead.

So I take your point, that maybe this particular edit is a trivial thing to template her on; but she has continued her practice (albeit slowed) of idiosyncratic, unexplained or deceptively described removal of content for reasons that can only be explained as in furtherance of a personal point of view. I don't think that such editing should pass without at least occasional comment, and that's what I did. JohnInDC (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that some edits have been problematic, but I'm not convinced that any bias is intended. It looks to me that since late summer, 99% of her edits are just fine. On her user page, she does state that she has a medical issue, which may affect her editing. I think the kind and right thing to do is that when an edit appears especially problematic, just leave a note perhaps something like this "Hi Packerfansam, I reverted your edit ... because .... If you think I made a mistake or didn't understand, please let me know ..." --I am One of Many (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is another: August 12 - at List of people from Chicago, she deleted Anton LaVey – founder of the Church of Satan, and notable by any measure - from the list; and removed the description of another individual as “Orthodox Jewish". Her edit summary stated simply that “certain content seemed inappropriate”. She as much as admits the edit is just because she doesn't like it.

I agree that 99% of her edits are fine. But the ones that are bad are - pretty bad. And you know, while I agree (broadly) that sympathy and a gentler touch is often the better way to go, this editor has been given plenty of chances to think about her editing, and what kinds of edits are sound, and what aren't; and yet she persists. I don't see really any kind of meaningful effort or concern on her part at all.

Let me suggest this. It appears that we agree that at least some of her edits are troublesome. I am perfectly willing to allow that my approach may be doomed to fail; but I remain unhappy with the prospect simply giving her (yet) another pass. In writing my original note to you, I wanted to be sure I had accurately recollected your participation at the ANI, so I re-read it, and saw that you said, "If there are issues in the next few weeks or months, we can deal with them." Since issues do remain with her edits, and something really does need to be done, would you be willing to approach her in a way that, in your judgment, might be more productive? I'd agree right now to stay out of any discussion you may have with her. Let me know. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies

Thank you for your continued support and I apologize for any undue stress it may cause you. I have my opinions and and there are reasons I have them, and I'm willing to take heat for it, but I do feel bad if my actions result in problems for others. Packerfansam (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)