Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 15 April 2014

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Teleological argument article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Metaphysics / Logic / Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Logic Philosophy of religion Template:WikiProject Intelligent design

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Lead issues

Lead too long

I agree that the lead is too long. It seems to deal with matters that are far too detailed for a lead. I propose that all the wording from "Since the 1960s ..." is moved to the article body.Myrvin (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with this proposed shortening, since most if not all of the content is dealt with in more detail in the body text there probably isn't much to move there. . . dave souza, talk 15:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead citations

{{collapse top|Section is now entirely one editor accusing others of bad faith. See ], ] and ].]}} Also, the wording "more generally of some kind of intelligent agent of creation, based upon proposed empirical evidence of human-like design or purpose in nature" seems odd. The words "empirical evidence" do not appear on p. 261 of the cited source. On a minor point, the words "some kind of" seem unnecessary. We need a better source for this assertion. ] (]) 13:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have deactivated your collapse, and I note for the record that it contains a dishonest ad hominem summary of the discussion it seeks to hide, plus a comment which makes no sense unless there is something needing to be read in the collapsed part. The discussions you want to hide contained expressions of concern about sourcing, as well as replies to those concerns and expressions of concern about the sequence of events leading to the edits and expressions of concerns; and expressions of concerning about lead writing formats. All these things should stay on record, and might come up again. Indeed Gaba P made "warning", as usual, to the fact that the discussion might be relevant to wikidrama also. Why should you be allowed to hide my self defense, and attempts to avoid having my edits and positions badly distorted, and replace it with a distortion aimed to cover up what really happened? The fact that the discussion contains descriptions of the editing sequences that raise doubts about the good faith and editing judgement of at least one editor does not mean that even those edits are covered by the policies you mention.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, you're the one editor making repeated personal attacks and refusing to assume good faith. This is very unwise of you, please desist and focus on article improvements, not on other editors. . . dave souza, talk 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave, I have also reverted your collapse. How can it be acceptable to not only collapse a supposedly off topic discussion, but also insert a response which obviously seeks to distort how the discussion went below? To repeat, it is obvious that what you want to hide is my summary of the series of editing events you were involved in, as well as the response to your obviously fabricated pseudo concerns. Obviously if the concerns were ever real, then this discussion is very relevant for editors to see. I do not have to assume good faith, and neither do others. And just to confirm what I have said several times: I interpret these types of posts were you and Gaba P give advice about how I am not being wise as something that you and the other defenders of the current ID article do very often as a way to threaten and bully less experienced editors. I think when put in perspective as something you do often, it is disgraceful. If you want the legitimacy of your bullying judged by the broader community then bring it to a neutral forum, instead of posting such veiled threats all the time. Of course you know what the community thinks of this way of threatening and bullying. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book and not going to go far with more experienced editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

How about this from the OED: "argument from design n. Theol. an argument for the existence of an intelligent creator (usually identified as God) based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world" Myrvin (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

While I don't have a secondary source immediately to hand commenting on this point, Paley's Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity implies that the argument can be used to show the attributes of Mr. Deity as well as being an argument for His existence. . dave souza, talk 15:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, the claimed term "argument from intelligent design" is not supported by the cited source, page 261, which explicitly refers to the current "intellectual and political aspirations of so-called intelligent-design theorists. Their confidence in a particular form of the design argument is so strong that they believe it should be taught in high school science classes as a check on the pretensions of evolutionary theory."
This is clearly the DI's ID, and it's a good source for the point that ID is a particular form of the design argument, not the generic argument. It's also a source for the generic term "design argument" which should really be bolded in our lead alongside teleological argument and argument from design.
It's plausible that some sources use "argument from intelligent design" to refer to the generic argument, but a good citation is needed giving evidence that exactly that phrase has significant usage. . . . . dave souza, talk 15:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave, as already mentioned in my edit comments here, and on the talk page at Intelligent Design (in the discussion which inspired you to come here and start tagging), you wrote the current lead more than anyone, and so you should know that no one is claiming that the source you mention is the source for those specific words. (I have not checked but probably you inserted that source.) Furthermore this talk page's archives show you recently stating in clear terms that you agree this wording is sourceable. The source is easy to copy and paste if it is needed. I can forgive you for forgetting that, but (a) I find it silly that you did this as a way to make a point about a discussion on another article (which you then announced there). And (b) I find it even sillier that I already explained the history of this wording and sourcing and you are playing dumb and pretending you do not know the answer to your pointy point. Great to see that you also brought your human bot edit warrior over to this article with you. Anyway, there is nothing stopping anyone putting the source in, so putting in a tag instead is plain dumb, but the question I already raised, as you know, is whether we need to put a footnote on every word choice. I assume you are saying "yes" but on what possible grounds? The whole structure of this discussion makes it sound like we are only allowed to use exact words from sources, but that would be WP:COPYVIO. On WP, demands like this are normally considered a classic sign of "tendentiousness". It would be easy to ruin any article if every unsourced word could be tagged.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, please cut out this WP:BATTLEFIELD stuff and WP:AGF. These were your edits introducing a term that lacks any source. It was disappointing to find that this defining term in the lead was unsourced. Once again, please provide a good citation giving evidence that the exact phrase "argument from intelligent design" has significant usage as a term for the teleological argument. . dave souza, talk 08:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave AGF is not relevant here. Facts are facts, and I am just describing them. You really did come here from a discussion on another article, put a tag on a sentence you are responsible for and which you knew the sourcing for (and which is already sourced on talk page discussions and in the body of the article), and then go back to the other article and make your pointy announcement. And concerning your battlefield accusations, please do not once again try to create false impressions as you have done on my talkpage. As you know from those discussions on the ID article, I am not referring to Myrvin as your bot, but Gaba P. Again what I mean by that has been explained and is just a fact. Gaba P's edits are all kneejerk edits defending your positions, and on talk pages Gaba P's posts never show any interest or knowledge in the subjects of the articles. This happens over and over again, so even if you do not want it to happen, it would be just silly to pretend that it is a major factor in everything that happens where you are. It brings down the quality of Misplaced Pages and you should feel bad about it, and want it to stop. It is very relevant to everything because your manner of discussion shows that you now quite used to the fact that there are people who are going to go to war for you whenever you say you want something or don't want something, even reverting copyedits for you. Back to the subject, I am sure you can copy and paste the source from this talkpage where you have discussed it in recent times, or from the body of the article where it should be, if you think it needed. Putting a tag on the sentence however is purely tendentious because by this point there is no way at all that you can still claim not to know the source. The choice is up to you as usual. But please do not make up little stories in order to blame others for your own poor editing on the articles you dominate.

OTOH you still refuse to address my point: we can not and should not put footnotes on every word. Normally we would just make sure the sourcing for points of detail like this is in the body of the article. That is what we currently already have. Thickets of footnotes in leads do not improve the verifiability of articles. They do the opposite, and are generally a sign of synthesis and/or poor copy editing. This is a standard WP norm I am explaining to you, although I know that in articles you work on such norms are not followed, so possibly you have lost touch with how things are done outside your area of interest. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Word of advice Andrew Lancaster: one more WP:PA like this one or the one in your above comment and I'll be seeking administrator intervention. You'd be wise to WP:FOC and drop the name-calling from now on. Consider yourself warned.

As for the issue at hand regarding the lead, Dave explained it above quite succinctly. The term "intelligent" was shoe-horned by you (at least) twice into the lead and it simply needs sourcing, otherwise it will have to be removed (that's how WP works in case you are still not aware). So if you have a source then present it and we can move on. Regards. Gaba 15:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Gaba, I'm concerned that if this precise term only appears in one source we could be synthesising an appearance of significance from an isolated instance: that's why I'm asking for evidence that the exact phrase "argument from intelligent design" has significant usage, so that we don't give undue weight to a minority view. We can of course discuss references in this talk page, . . dave souza, talk 16:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Found a new reasoning Dave? Dave if that was your reasoning, you should have stated it up front and you should not have pretended not to have been involved in the original discussions on this talk page which led to that wording. If you find the terminology simply not notable it is better to remove it than to tag bomb or over-source the lead. I still find the chain of events very remarkable though. Because clearly you came here from a debate in another article, placed the tags and then went back to that debate with remarks that distort the situation here, apparently all in order to score a point out of it. Only later have your developed a new "concern", and that concern (notability) is now a pretty minor one and also one which actually could not have been resolved by simply finding a source (which we already had)! So the tag was always quite wrong. Honestly, I see no other way to describe what happened. Poor judgement.

Gaba, I note the usual threats that you make whenever anyone describes reality, and I note that you still show no interest or understanding in the actual subject matter of the discussion. Do you do anything else on Misplaced Pages than try to muscle people around in the name of causes? I do not recall you ever posting anything which showed any understanding or interest in the subjects of the articles involved. I only see you make ad hominem talk page edits like this one, in a pattern which strongly appears to be factional (always taking particular sides) rather than based on whatever is happening in a specific context. Honestly I do not believe I am saying anything controversial if I say that such an editing pattern is one that would make most people in this community uncomfortable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave souza agreed, the source should of course be as clear as possible to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN.

Andrew Lancaster: 1- you can describe "reality" without the WP:PAs, that's an advice you should take to heart if you wish your WP editing to continue, 2- if you think that simply asking for a source is to "muscle people around" then you are in the wrong place my friend, 3- "ad hominem talk page edits", please go read Ad hominem because you clearly do not understand what it means (your name calling for instance is a clear ad-hominem), 4- I'm sorry that my asking for sources makes you uncomfortable. You know how you could put this to an end? Simple: instead of writing 6.2 Kbs of text today you should have presented the source you based your edit in. I'll give you one more chance to come up with at least one WP:RS source for your edit, otherwise I'll remove it from the lead. Regards. Gaba 20:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Gaba P, no Dave's concern has changed to notability: he says finding a single source is not good enough for his new real concern. You should read more carefully. To make it very clear, I understand your position like this: you are an habitual bully on Misplaced Pages and you are used to threatening people by implying that you are going to get them in trouble whenever they do something you don't like, such as post too many words on a talk page that disagree with the editors you think you agree with. How many times have I seen you try this now? Would it be a couple of times a month that you do this? But what you are not used to is sticking with a discussion and trying to understand it. Honestly, I can not remember once when you wrote a post or made an edit which proved that you read the subject matter you are policing. (Counting kilobytes is not reading.) This pattern is so absolutely stark that there are no pleasing ways to describe it. Of course when there are editors doing this then all discussion is difficult, but at least some of us are talking about writing an encyclopedia. Communication is what the talk pages are meant to be for right? Is it reasonable to demand that posts be kept short for every subject on WP?

You will not have noticed it, but I have already said my main concern here is not proving there is a source, which is only a pointy demand, given that it was only recently discussed by the very person demanding it (try typing "from intelligent design" in the archive search box, or perhaps read this article which you suddenly have such strong opinions about). I have no real attachment to whether the words stay or not anyway. I just say that deleting the words is better than filling the lead with pointy tags and thickets of over-sourcing, as are found already in the article where this pointyness started in the first place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"I have no real attachment to whether the words stay or not anyway", if you had said this from the start you could have saved us all a lot of time. I'm removing the word then.

Here's some friendly advice for you Andrew (this is not a threat in any way, shape or form): you should really: a- stop using talk pages as a forum, b- stop issuing personal attacks on other editors and c- start figuring ways to reduce your incessant walls of text. Your inability to see how disruptive your talk page editing is (mainly in the Intelligent design article) will eventually, and I dare say almost certainly, lead to you be either blocked or topic banned. Unlike what you might think I have no desire to see you under neither restriction, I do however would very much like to see you address the three concerns I mentioned above. Regards. Gaba 22:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Gaba of course I understand your "advice" as being a veiled threat, as always. But you do not even see how ridiculous this situation is, which is not good for Misplaced Pages.

• You came here to demand an edit you still do not really know the pros and cons of. You apparently only know Dave seemed to demand a source.
• Every post of yours has contained a "friendly warning", as is your way. You almost seem unable to write anything on a talkpage without them.
• Not only do you not know the background, but you also don't read my replies, nor Dave's, properly, so even now you are still working based on a very incomplete understandings of this situation as a simple missing source.
• And you are now even blaming me for not helping you understand, when you clearly never wanted to.

If you do the search I suggested you'll see that Dave previously recently felt the words sourceable. And just because I have inserted them at some point, based on such talk page discussions, does not mean I have been fighting for them as you seem to assume. These two facts make your demands appear to be based on a wrong understanding. What I was really saying I was concerned about is constant and I accept no responsibility for you not reading:

• that we should not rush to make pointy edits such as tag-bombing or demanding sourcing for every word in a lead
• that we should certainly not be jumping from one article to another and inserting tags etc when we do not even have the time or interest to check the background

I stick by those points, but I take it you are not interested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. . . . dave souza, talk 07:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:TEND. We recently discussed the source. You said you accepted there was sourcing. I have reminded you of it, and told Gaba what search terms to use (as if that was necessary). It is also in the body. You have not disagreed with any of those things and I think it is pretty bloody clear that you are now are playing a game. But why? You have also very recently turned to say that re-naming only one source does not reply to your concern anyway. Furthermore I am not during this discussion defending the wording or source, I've said that over and over and I my concern about cynical tagging, poor lead formatting habits you have, and editing patterns (tag team editing; tagging here purely to score points in a discussion elsewhere etc). You pretend you do not understand this perhaps because you don't what it pointed to but why not just stop doing it? Also see WP:IDNHT. Dave don't you find that life is too short for this kind of thing? Where are you trying to go with this? Are my positions really so scary to you that you feel this need to constantly distort everything I say even in a simply case like this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Belgian references

Some links for books refer to Belgian Google - see ref 14: Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity url= http://books.google.be/books?id=SgRuJEfzUG8C

For the English WP, these should surely be to the English Google. Myrvin (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Augustine of Hippo

The uncited text for this seems to say that he did not try to prove the existence of God, but just asserted that God has a plan. Does this belong here? Myrvin (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ruse (!) notes in 'Darwin and Design' that Augustine makes some mention of such an argument. I found it in 'City of God': "the world itself, by its well-ordered changes and movements, and by the fair appearance of all visible things, bears a testimony of its own, both that it has been created, and also that it could not have been created save by God, whose greatness and beauty are unutterable and invisible." I think we should use this. Myrvin (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class metaphysics articles
• High-importance metaphysics articles
• Metaphysics task force articles
• Start-Class logic articles
• High-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles
• Start-Class philosophy of religion articles
• High-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles