Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tisthammerw

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tisthammerw (talk | contribs) at 23:57, 3 November 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:57, 3 November 2005 by Tisthammerw (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello Tisthammerw, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Intelligent design

Hi. If you want to insert an {{NPOV}} tag (and I think you really wanted {{sectNPOV}} you need to explain specifically how the section violates NPOV. Given the amount of trolling that page attracts, it would be much better if you could raise the issues on the Talk page first. The best thing to do is to outline the specific changes you would like to make, and why. Thanks. Guettarda 22:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually was referring to the factual accuracy, not POV (though the article does have POV problems). The section I was referring to did have factual errors in both philosophy of science and in some cases even intelligent design. (Criticizing ID is one thing, distorting what ID theory actually says is quite another.) BTW, I have already gone to the discussion page first. --Wade A. Tisthammer (11/3/2005)


  • My point is that you need to explain your problem with the section. You can't just say it's "factually inaccurate" - you need to address what's wrong with it. These tags are a last resort, not a starting place. You need to start by outlining your problems with the section and how you would change it. What is factually inaccurate?
In addition, factully correct is POV. Everything is POV. NPOV is a matter of producing a balanced statement which takes into account the major POVs, and presents them is a wat that does not make fringe views seem more mainstream than they really are, nor does it make the mainstream seem more marginal than it really it. Guettarda 23:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I did explain my problem with the section. And if "factually correct" is POV, and if everything is POV, why do we have the factual-dispute tag? Wade A. Tisthammer 23:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being factually correct. It's a matter of reporting what the scientific community says are the reasons for not defining ID as science. This is not such a subtle distinction that it should be this hard for anyone to understand. FeloniousMonk 23:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but the article does not report the criteria as the position of the "scientific community" but as fact. Additionally, it's unclear that the criteria listed are even representative of the entire scientific community. Note for instance my example of Del Ratzsch. Also, Michael Ruse made some similar criteria in one creationism court case (e.g. falsifiability and tentativeness) and that has been criticized by even anti-creationists. Also, if the scientific community misunderstands the ID position, that is still no excuse to put forth a distorted version of ID in the wikipedia (I discuss the distortion part on one of the discussion pages regarding it being a featured article). Wade A. Tisthammer 23:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, the article states very clearly: "Typical objections to defining Intelligent Design as science are:"
Not to take anything away from Ratzsch or Ruse, but they do not speak for the scientific community, which is what that section describes. Those few dissenting voices does not invalidate the criteria for demarcation. Your objections and arguments have been noted and were not found compelling by the regular contributors. You need to accept and stop dirupting the article with reverts. In fact, you've already reverted 4 times, violating the 3 revert rule and I could have you blocked temporarily from editing, read WP:3RR. So this is your warning against reverting and disruptions. FeloniousMonk 23:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Before that, the article states very clearly "For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:" and even after it makes that claim it states very clearly "In light of its failure to adhere to these standards..." Perhaps it was only representing the scientific community rather than stating facts when stating the criteria, but even if true that should have been made more clear. And again, the claim that the section represents the scientific community is questionable; note what I said about Ruse and his criteria.

On what grounds did you (or anyone else, if there is anyone else) not find my criticisms compelling? You have failed to give any reason why, and you have failed to give any reason justifying that my criticisms are among only a "few" dissenting voices regarding the philosophy of science (e.g. regarding tentativeness).