This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I'm basically coming in response to the request for comment. So far as I can see, the article lacks some substantiation and restructuring.
The references seem not to refer to the correct lists
Caption of Ref. 18 says April 1, 2004 version of Dissent petition, but a click opens a January 2005 document
Click on Ref. 19 does not open any document on http://www.webarchive.org, at least not with my browser (Firefox)
Click on Ref. 20 does not open any document on http://www.webarchive.org, at least not with my browser (Firefox)
Click on Ref. 21 does not open any document on http://www.webarchive.org, at least not with my browser (Firefox)
Caption of Ref. 22 says Feb 3, 2007 version of Dissent petition, but a click opens a January 2007 document
Caption of Ref. 22 says April 4, 2007 version of Dissent petition, but a click opens a February 2007 document
Do the captions refer to the dates of a press release by the Discovery Institute? If so, captions should be amended accordingly. If not, captions should reflect the dates given on top of each list. As it is now, it is confusing.
Northfox 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The dates in the citations refer to the date associated with the given version of the list as was determined from studying the literature, multiple website references, etc. I stand by these estimates, but of course I could have made a mistake; I only spent maybe 10 hours on this. They are not necessarily the dates of press releases which were not always made. The links open fine on my browser so you might have to use internet archive and do your own investigation, possibly using the addresses that can be found by editing the page. --13:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Filll (
talk •
contribs)
Actually, if you study the changes to the document as recorded in the internet archive, whatever is recorded in the document itself is not necessarily reflected in the updates to the document and the dates at which they are recorded in internet archive. Granted, there can be a delay before an update shows up in internet archive, but in many instances the updates are quite frequent; almost every day. Take a look.-- Filll 15:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at the the Internet Archive:
There is nothing here to indicate that the internal dates are inaccurate. Hrafn Talk Stalk 16:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Should there be a link to Salem hypothesis at all here?-- ZayZayEM 00:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." - I would personally sign that. I know each and every single scientist does indeed endorse this, and always did, ever since Darwin first published On the Origin of Species. The fallacy here is that someone who really follows the notion laid out in the statement acts very much in the spirit of science. Anyone who doesn't follow it acts non-scientifically, because scepticism is the basic premise of all science. If sources can be found for this, a paragraph outlining this (typically ID, I might add) inner fallacy should definitely be included in the article. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 19:48, December 5, 2007
There are no scientists that would agree with this. The sneaky trick that the
Discovery Institute uses is to phrase their statements so blandly and vaguely that no one would disagree. Then they extrapolate from that agreement to all kinds of nonsense, like support of
biblical literalism, or disparagement of other faiths etc.--
Filll (
talk)
21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I edited a paragraph in the expertise section, and here is its present form
TIME senior science writer Michael Lemonick describes A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism as "an attempt to divert your attention" by citing the opinions of scientists who have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology, which he describes as "intellectual dishonesty." For example, Lemonick pointed out that one of the more prominently described members of the list is a surgeon with no expertise relevant to evolution.[5] The Discovery Institute responded by labeling Lemonick "Time's Darwinist Thought-Cop ... who writes for a weekly news tabloid" and by questioning Lemonick's credentials by quoting Lemonick himself "I've been covering science in major publications for more than two decades. Consider the fact that I may have actually learned a thing or two along the way"
I changed 'writer' to 'science writer', because that's how he is described in his wikiarticle. I deleted an unnecessary 'another' in the second sentence. Most importantly, I found out that the ID does not question his qualifications. In the DI article is a quote from Lemonick about Lemonick on his TIME blog. He himself describes himself as a non-professional. The quote and the sentence before now really look terrible, but before I edit further, I want to bounce it off this list. Any idea of improvement? How about just chopping off the bit starting from '...and by questioning...'? Northfox ( talk) 13:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ref 6 and Ref 23 are used as quotes to qualify for the two adjectives 'confusing and misleading' in the last paragraph of "Discovery Institute usage".
Ref 23: http://www.texscience.org/files/discovery-signers.htm | title = Texas Citizens for Science Responds to Latest Discovery Institute Challenge | first = Steven | last = Schafersman | date = 2003-09-02 | accessdate = 2007-10-30 | format = html | language = english.
I doubt that this is a valid source. First, Schafersman is a geologist, not a biologist, and thus no expert in the field. Second, the article appeared only on the web, and the host, Texas Citizens for Science is a 'grassroots organization' without credentials. Their pages are last updated July 2004 (3 and a half years ago!), so it seems that this was a one-time movement, that is now defunct.
That leaves the Forrest article as a source, but she does not mention 'confusing and misleading'. I suggest to remove both the adjectives and ref. 23
Northfox ( talk) 06:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure where you got the idea "their pages are last updated July 2004". Their web page says: Last updated: 2008 January 3 and includes news items dated Dec. 20, 2007. As for Schafersman's credentials, on his testimony to the Texas State Board of Education Textbook Adoption Hearing, he is described as
an evolutionary scientist who for over two decades has taught biology, geology, paleontology, and environmental science at the University of Houston, Houston Community College, Miami University of Ohio, and the University of Texas of the Permian Basin.
Given Schaferman's active role in science education in general and evolution education in particular, and given his first hand presence in the events of which he speaks, I can't see how he wouldn't be a reliable source for the statement that
The Discovery Institute compiled and distributed other similarly confusing and misleading lists of local scientists during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas
Guettarda ( talk) 07:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Northfox ( talk) 11:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article make such a big deal about how many people on the list did not receive their degree from a US university?
The article is not objective, as I would have hoped to see from Wikipedia. It lists several 'dubious' affiliations, but ignores the fact that there are many legit, creditable scientists out there who do not accept macro-evolution as fact or truth. This is what the list is seeking to demonstrate, that the statement "99.9% of scientists accept evolution" is false. Note that in that statement Dr. Raff said "scientists", not "biologists". So ignoring the chemists, physicists, mathemeticians etc. who have agreed to the declaration is hardly doing justice to the issue. I also find it amusing that the 'citation' given by Wikipedia to this "99.9%" statement ( http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf) is a weekly NIH newsletter which features a long article on eastern religion meditation practices.
--still confused Rob387 ( talk) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In what way does it not express the views within in the rough proportion of their prominence? Darwin dissenters represent less than 1 per cent of the scientists in the relevant fields. And so this article can be more than 99% negative by NPOV. It is far less negative than that, so it is more than fair. Is that clear ?-- Filll ( talk) 01:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that D'Abrera was at the National History Museum while it was still formally named British Museum (Natural History). For a timeline of names, see [ [1]]. Thus it is only correct to state that name. Nothing that merits a confusing and non-related mention in this article here. Northfox ( talk) 05:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
When d'Abrera signed, it had not had this name for many years. As near as I can tell, this was a clear attempt to shade the truth a bit, which if you look into d'Abrera's record, he has done over and over and over. And a good fraction of the other people who have signed the statement have done the same.-- Filll ( talk) 00:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"The Discovery Institute compiled and distributed other similarly confusing and misleading lists..."
This sounds too much like POV. No matter whether it is true or not, this statement should not be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.212.14 ( talk) 00:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely. In fact, the entire article seems to have a POV. It is certainly true that the vast majority of scientists would disagree with the petition, but that does not mean that the article should blatantly bias itself against the Discovery Institute. NPOV means that the article should describe the petition and the debate but not engage in the debate against the topic of the article. WP:NPOV should be consulted by all editors, especially for this article. VashiDonsk 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
User user:Relata refero has twice removed the following, citing a WP:BLP violation:
However, I don't see how this is a BLP violation (even if this was a biography). There is no policy which says "we cannot present unflattering material regarding a living person" (indeed, much of Wikipedia would have to be rewritten if such a policy was introduced!). The statement is sourced, and the source is a notable expert. Are you saying that Myers didn't say this? Are you saying that Myers is not an expert? The article doesn't even mention Egnor by name, hence the reader would have to click the reference to find out who Myers is talking about anyhow: whereupon he/she would find out that Myers did indeed say various uncomplimentary things about Egnor, including the stuff we cited. This is not a problem, as far as I can see. I will revert. -- Robert Stevens ( talk) 09:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This is another example of misinterpretation of WP:BLP and an attempt to apply the "big hammer" of BLP on a nonbiography. In this case, the "subject" of this comment is not even mentioned. And Pharyngula is the most heavily trafficked science blog in the world at this point in time (or maybe second, but very prominent). This is a statement by a highly notable person in evolution and in the evolution-creationism debates. A faculty member at a major university and someone targeted by Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the intelligent design creationism propaganda movie, for that very reason. So under the rules of WP:SPS, this is a WP:RS, and linking to it does not violate BLP. If these sorts of rules were applied, as Robert Stevens points out, we would have to remove all articles about all books, lectures, movies, radio shows, magazines, scientific articles, etc from Wikipedia. This sort of extreme view of what BLP covers just staggers the imagination. Unfortunately, this extrapolation has been done over and over. It is starting to approach WP:TE and WP:DE.-- Filll ( talk) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a lousy interpretation of BLP and an incredible stretch to claim it applies here.-- Filll ( talk) 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This is at least the 3rd time I have seen RR do this at ID related articles. Only one of the three was actually a biography. In one case, a review that was widely cited and published in Talk Origins was judged to violate BLP because it was a negative review of a book, and therefore would reflect badly on the author of the book. Inspection of the review showed no attack on the author whatsoever, just the content of the book. In this case, we have one of the most well known and highly respected science blogs in the world published by a notable figure and expert, expressing some opinion about someone we do not even name, again not in a biography. If we are to remove all links to all sources that might contain some negative information about someone somewhere, we will greatly impoverish Wikipedia. In any case, even if identifying the subject of Myer's comments constitutes a BLP violation, we do not do this on Wikipedia so where is the problem??? Finally, we have a biography that was edited by someone with an IP address the same as the subject of the biography, and now RR claims that warning notices of the IP editing constiute a BLP violation. I have asked over and over for the policy to back this up, but have received no response. In addition, RR claims that anything beyond bare links in a biography describing the activities in more detail constitue a BLP violation, even when the material we are including appeared in the New York Times and can be sourced in many other ways as well. So the more of this I encounter, the less impressed I am. It is one spurious argument after another, after another. None of them hold water. None of them make any sense. None of them align with WP policy. It is all nonsense.-- Filll ( talk) 21:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"I edit tons and tons of BLPs. The only places where I ever get this sort of reaction is in ID articles". So what are you saying - that it's only on ID-related articles are people fail to tolerate
[2] your chronic incivility
[3]? Or that it's only on ID-related articles that you are this rude and disruptive?
Guettarda (
talk)
06:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are we not naming Michael Egnor in the text, when his name is clearly visible even in the title of the cite? Either we have the balls to name names, or we don't. - Merzbow ( talk) 08:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing the sources, it looks like the PZ Myers cite might need to be generally re-written - this and the extant citation should probably both be linked. I may re-write tomorrow. The current version isn't great and more focus could be based on the substantive reasons why Myers thinks Egnor's missing the point rather than just calling him an idiot. Might also avoid the BLP concerns. WLU ( talk) 01:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The following statement needs a source that actually verifies it to be true, which I think we all believe it is, yet no source currently validates this belief:
When I added a ((cn)) tag I was reverted twice by FeloniusMonk, who then added this source. The problem is that this source does not in any way address the claim. Its only mention of the petition is to say that at the time the source was published the petition had over 470 names on it. Now so as not to edit war I am not reverting FeloniusMonk but I would appreciate it if he self-reverted and found a real source here. Any and all are welcome to do the same. Thanks.04:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC) PelleSmith ( talk)
"The Discovery Institute presents the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint." cf. "Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".
Pot? Kettle? Black? Fritleyfrisp ( talk) 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggested change to sentence
We have a source for calling the list an appeal to authority. Do you have a source calling the Alters quote in a peer reviewed journal an Appeal to Authority?--
Filll (
talk)
23:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The Alters quote is not an "appeal to authority", it is a refutation of the DI's factual basis for making their appeal (where the fact that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy is a refutation of its logical basis). Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Lead, 4th sentence: "Dissent From Darwinism is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[2]"
[2] is about a "not terribly productive" Institute researcher which Forrest looks at in light of an Institute statement that “researchers at the new Institute are serious scientists with impressive research records”. Anne Gaugner, with colleagues Axe and Dixon, wrote that “Researchers at the Biologic Institute are convinced that [the theory of intelligent design can lead to good science]”. (Quoted by Forrest)
Forrest says, "A May 2007 search of scientific databases for peer-reviewed articles by Gauger, a signatory to the Discovery Institute’s list of scientists who “dissent from Darwinism” (Discovery Institute, 2007), yielded only three identifiable articles, written in 1985, 1987, and 1993, all outdated by scientific standards (Gauger et al., 1985; Gauger et al., 1987; Gauger and Goldstein, 1993)." ( Forrest, 2007 p. 24)
This is the sole mention of the petition in the source. Is there another source for the assertion in our article? I think it's clear this won't do. 86.44.28.186 ( talk) 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the current edit war between WAS and others. Please have a look at Talk:Rosalind_Picard#Proposing_some_language. There is no reliable source anywhere on this planet that backs up the statement that "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism or Dissent From Darwinism, is a petition promoting intelligent design." Before the final language was nailed down on the Picard page I asked repeatedly for such a source and none was ever produced. You should at least consider implementing the language used on that page because it is clearly more accurate. Regards. PelleSmith ( talk) 03:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted
that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.”
The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradictionto the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.
For this I count two sources, by prominent notable faculty members. Both are very well cited. By WP:SPS, these are WP:RS.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well philosophers and political scientists and sociologists are relevant, because they are the people that deal with "appeals to authority", not biologists. But there are lots of other potential sources [4] [5] by Matt Inlay, clearly notable in this area, as well as Ed Brayton [6]. I am sure I could find more with a bit of work. Is there any doubt that this is an appeal to authority? It appears to satisfy all the definitional requirements and does note even really need a source in fact.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Assent to what? I am confused. The list is obviously an "appeal to authority", just as it is obviously a "list". We have 3 sources for it by notable figures. I am sure we can get more. And what is wrong with Forrest's essay? She is a notable figure. The same material is in articles and books by Forrest. We can draw on those as well, but by
WP:SPS her statements in such a venue are reliable sources. I do not understand what your problem is. And besides which, we do things by consensus here, not by your dictates or fiats or fatwahs. Sorry.--
Filll (
talk |
wpc)
15:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The source for calling it an 'appeal to authority' is this: [7]
Intelligent design proponents meanwhile celebrate it as a soon-to-be-mature alternative that will eventually overthrow evolution's status as a dominant scientific paradigm. Author Lee Strobel in a Christianity Today interview said "one of the fastest growing phenomenon is scientists who are doubtful of the claims of Darwinism" as "there's more than 300 scientists with doctorates from major universities who've now signed this statement saying that they are skeptical of the claims of neo-Darwinism." (Science that Backs Up Faith - Christianity Today Magazine) This appeal to authority is coupled with the scientifically recognized fact (since 1965) that the universe has a finite origin now figured at 13.7 billion years ago (from work via Hubble and Keck telescope evidence, among cosmologists). Strobel construes the origin to mean that "whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause." Readers should recognize circular reasoning here; but if not, they may recognize the absence of an empirically testable claim.
...which is clearly calling A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism ("there's more than 300 scientists with doctorates from major universities who've now signed this statement saying that they are skeptical of the claims of neo-Darwinism.") an appeal to authority. This statement is not referring to "a 2002 sampling of 460 Ohio science professors" (which only comes up several paragraphs later). Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I'm basically coming in response to the request for comment. So far as I can see, the article lacks some substantiation and restructuring.
The references seem not to refer to the correct lists
Caption of Ref. 18 says April 1, 2004 version of Dissent petition, but a click opens a January 2005 document
Click on Ref. 19 does not open any document on http://www.webarchive.org, at least not with my browser (Firefox)
Click on Ref. 20 does not open any document on http://www.webarchive.org, at least not with my browser (Firefox)
Click on Ref. 21 does not open any document on http://www.webarchive.org, at least not with my browser (Firefox)
Caption of Ref. 22 says Feb 3, 2007 version of Dissent petition, but a click opens a January 2007 document
Caption of Ref. 22 says April 4, 2007 version of Dissent petition, but a click opens a February 2007 document
Do the captions refer to the dates of a press release by the Discovery Institute? If so, captions should be amended accordingly. If not, captions should reflect the dates given on top of each list. As it is now, it is confusing.
Northfox 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The dates in the citations refer to the date associated with the given version of the list as was determined from studying the literature, multiple website references, etc. I stand by these estimates, but of course I could have made a mistake; I only spent maybe 10 hours on this. They are not necessarily the dates of press releases which were not always made. The links open fine on my browser so you might have to use internet archive and do your own investigation, possibly using the addresses that can be found by editing the page. --13:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Filll (
talk •
contribs)
Actually, if you study the changes to the document as recorded in the internet archive, whatever is recorded in the document itself is not necessarily reflected in the updates to the document and the dates at which they are recorded in internet archive. Granted, there can be a delay before an update shows up in internet archive, but in many instances the updates are quite frequent; almost every day. Take a look.-- Filll 15:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at the the Internet Archive:
There is nothing here to indicate that the internal dates are inaccurate. Hrafn Talk Stalk 16:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Should there be a link to Salem hypothesis at all here?-- ZayZayEM 00:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." - I would personally sign that. I know each and every single scientist does indeed endorse this, and always did, ever since Darwin first published On the Origin of Species. The fallacy here is that someone who really follows the notion laid out in the statement acts very much in the spirit of science. Anyone who doesn't follow it acts non-scientifically, because scepticism is the basic premise of all science. If sources can be found for this, a paragraph outlining this (typically ID, I might add) inner fallacy should definitely be included in the article. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 19:48, December 5, 2007
There are no scientists that would agree with this. The sneaky trick that the
Discovery Institute uses is to phrase their statements so blandly and vaguely that no one would disagree. Then they extrapolate from that agreement to all kinds of nonsense, like support of
biblical literalism, or disparagement of other faiths etc.--
Filll (
talk)
21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I edited a paragraph in the expertise section, and here is its present form
TIME senior science writer Michael Lemonick describes A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism as "an attempt to divert your attention" by citing the opinions of scientists who have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology, which he describes as "intellectual dishonesty." For example, Lemonick pointed out that one of the more prominently described members of the list is a surgeon with no expertise relevant to evolution.[5] The Discovery Institute responded by labeling Lemonick "Time's Darwinist Thought-Cop ... who writes for a weekly news tabloid" and by questioning Lemonick's credentials by quoting Lemonick himself "I've been covering science in major publications for more than two decades. Consider the fact that I may have actually learned a thing or two along the way"
I changed 'writer' to 'science writer', because that's how he is described in his wikiarticle. I deleted an unnecessary 'another' in the second sentence. Most importantly, I found out that the ID does not question his qualifications. In the DI article is a quote from Lemonick about Lemonick on his TIME blog. He himself describes himself as a non-professional. The quote and the sentence before now really look terrible, but before I edit further, I want to bounce it off this list. Any idea of improvement? How about just chopping off the bit starting from '...and by questioning...'? Northfox ( talk) 13:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ref 6 and Ref 23 are used as quotes to qualify for the two adjectives 'confusing and misleading' in the last paragraph of "Discovery Institute usage".
Ref 23: http://www.texscience.org/files/discovery-signers.htm | title = Texas Citizens for Science Responds to Latest Discovery Institute Challenge | first = Steven | last = Schafersman | date = 2003-09-02 | accessdate = 2007-10-30 | format = html | language = english.
I doubt that this is a valid source. First, Schafersman is a geologist, not a biologist, and thus no expert in the field. Second, the article appeared only on the web, and the host, Texas Citizens for Science is a 'grassroots organization' without credentials. Their pages are last updated July 2004 (3 and a half years ago!), so it seems that this was a one-time movement, that is now defunct.
That leaves the Forrest article as a source, but she does not mention 'confusing and misleading'. I suggest to remove both the adjectives and ref. 23
Northfox ( talk) 06:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure where you got the idea "their pages are last updated July 2004". Their web page says: Last updated: 2008 January 3 and includes news items dated Dec. 20, 2007. As for Schafersman's credentials, on his testimony to the Texas State Board of Education Textbook Adoption Hearing, he is described as
an evolutionary scientist who for over two decades has taught biology, geology, paleontology, and environmental science at the University of Houston, Houston Community College, Miami University of Ohio, and the University of Texas of the Permian Basin.
Given Schaferman's active role in science education in general and evolution education in particular, and given his first hand presence in the events of which he speaks, I can't see how he wouldn't be a reliable source for the statement that
The Discovery Institute compiled and distributed other similarly confusing and misleading lists of local scientists during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas
Guettarda ( talk) 07:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Northfox ( talk) 11:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article make such a big deal about how many people on the list did not receive their degree from a US university?
The article is not objective, as I would have hoped to see from Wikipedia. It lists several 'dubious' affiliations, but ignores the fact that there are many legit, creditable scientists out there who do not accept macro-evolution as fact or truth. This is what the list is seeking to demonstrate, that the statement "99.9% of scientists accept evolution" is false. Note that in that statement Dr. Raff said "scientists", not "biologists". So ignoring the chemists, physicists, mathemeticians etc. who have agreed to the declaration is hardly doing justice to the issue. I also find it amusing that the 'citation' given by Wikipedia to this "99.9%" statement ( http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf) is a weekly NIH newsletter which features a long article on eastern religion meditation practices.
--still confused Rob387 ( talk) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In what way does it not express the views within in the rough proportion of their prominence? Darwin dissenters represent less than 1 per cent of the scientists in the relevant fields. And so this article can be more than 99% negative by NPOV. It is far less negative than that, so it is more than fair. Is that clear ?-- Filll ( talk) 01:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that D'Abrera was at the National History Museum while it was still formally named British Museum (Natural History). For a timeline of names, see [ [1]]. Thus it is only correct to state that name. Nothing that merits a confusing and non-related mention in this article here. Northfox ( talk) 05:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
When d'Abrera signed, it had not had this name for many years. As near as I can tell, this was a clear attempt to shade the truth a bit, which if you look into d'Abrera's record, he has done over and over and over. And a good fraction of the other people who have signed the statement have done the same.-- Filll ( talk) 00:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"The Discovery Institute compiled and distributed other similarly confusing and misleading lists..."
This sounds too much like POV. No matter whether it is true or not, this statement should not be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.212.14 ( talk) 00:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely. In fact, the entire article seems to have a POV. It is certainly true that the vast majority of scientists would disagree with the petition, but that does not mean that the article should blatantly bias itself against the Discovery Institute. NPOV means that the article should describe the petition and the debate but not engage in the debate against the topic of the article. WP:NPOV should be consulted by all editors, especially for this article. VashiDonsk 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
User user:Relata refero has twice removed the following, citing a WP:BLP violation:
However, I don't see how this is a BLP violation (even if this was a biography). There is no policy which says "we cannot present unflattering material regarding a living person" (indeed, much of Wikipedia would have to be rewritten if such a policy was introduced!). The statement is sourced, and the source is a notable expert. Are you saying that Myers didn't say this? Are you saying that Myers is not an expert? The article doesn't even mention Egnor by name, hence the reader would have to click the reference to find out who Myers is talking about anyhow: whereupon he/she would find out that Myers did indeed say various uncomplimentary things about Egnor, including the stuff we cited. This is not a problem, as far as I can see. I will revert. -- Robert Stevens ( talk) 09:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This is another example of misinterpretation of WP:BLP and an attempt to apply the "big hammer" of BLP on a nonbiography. In this case, the "subject" of this comment is not even mentioned. And Pharyngula is the most heavily trafficked science blog in the world at this point in time (or maybe second, but very prominent). This is a statement by a highly notable person in evolution and in the evolution-creationism debates. A faculty member at a major university and someone targeted by Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the intelligent design creationism propaganda movie, for that very reason. So under the rules of WP:SPS, this is a WP:RS, and linking to it does not violate BLP. If these sorts of rules were applied, as Robert Stevens points out, we would have to remove all articles about all books, lectures, movies, radio shows, magazines, scientific articles, etc from Wikipedia. This sort of extreme view of what BLP covers just staggers the imagination. Unfortunately, this extrapolation has been done over and over. It is starting to approach WP:TE and WP:DE.-- Filll ( talk) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a lousy interpretation of BLP and an incredible stretch to claim it applies here.-- Filll ( talk) 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This is at least the 3rd time I have seen RR do this at ID related articles. Only one of the three was actually a biography. In one case, a review that was widely cited and published in Talk Origins was judged to violate BLP because it was a negative review of a book, and therefore would reflect badly on the author of the book. Inspection of the review showed no attack on the author whatsoever, just the content of the book. In this case, we have one of the most well known and highly respected science blogs in the world published by a notable figure and expert, expressing some opinion about someone we do not even name, again not in a biography. If we are to remove all links to all sources that might contain some negative information about someone somewhere, we will greatly impoverish Wikipedia. In any case, even if identifying the subject of Myer's comments constitutes a BLP violation, we do not do this on Wikipedia so where is the problem??? Finally, we have a biography that was edited by someone with an IP address the same as the subject of the biography, and now RR claims that warning notices of the IP editing constiute a BLP violation. I have asked over and over for the policy to back this up, but have received no response. In addition, RR claims that anything beyond bare links in a biography describing the activities in more detail constitue a BLP violation, even when the material we are including appeared in the New York Times and can be sourced in many other ways as well. So the more of this I encounter, the less impressed I am. It is one spurious argument after another, after another. None of them hold water. None of them make any sense. None of them align with WP policy. It is all nonsense.-- Filll ( talk) 21:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"I edit tons and tons of BLPs. The only places where I ever get this sort of reaction is in ID articles". So what are you saying - that it's only on ID-related articles are people fail to tolerate
[2] your chronic incivility
[3]? Or that it's only on ID-related articles that you are this rude and disruptive?
Guettarda (
talk)
06:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are we not naming Michael Egnor in the text, when his name is clearly visible even in the title of the cite? Either we have the balls to name names, or we don't. - Merzbow ( talk) 08:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing the sources, it looks like the PZ Myers cite might need to be generally re-written - this and the extant citation should probably both be linked. I may re-write tomorrow. The current version isn't great and more focus could be based on the substantive reasons why Myers thinks Egnor's missing the point rather than just calling him an idiot. Might also avoid the BLP concerns. WLU ( talk) 01:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The following statement needs a source that actually verifies it to be true, which I think we all believe it is, yet no source currently validates this belief:
When I added a ((cn)) tag I was reverted twice by FeloniusMonk, who then added this source. The problem is that this source does not in any way address the claim. Its only mention of the petition is to say that at the time the source was published the petition had over 470 names on it. Now so as not to edit war I am not reverting FeloniusMonk but I would appreciate it if he self-reverted and found a real source here. Any and all are welcome to do the same. Thanks.04:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC) PelleSmith ( talk)
"The Discovery Institute presents the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint." cf. "Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".
Pot? Kettle? Black? Fritleyfrisp ( talk) 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggested change to sentence
We have a source for calling the list an appeal to authority. Do you have a source calling the Alters quote in a peer reviewed journal an Appeal to Authority?--
Filll (
talk)
23:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The Alters quote is not an "appeal to authority", it is a refutation of the DI's factual basis for making their appeal (where the fact that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy is a refutation of its logical basis). Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Lead, 4th sentence: "Dissent From Darwinism is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[2]"
[2] is about a "not terribly productive" Institute researcher which Forrest looks at in light of an Institute statement that “researchers at the new Institute are serious scientists with impressive research records”. Anne Gaugner, with colleagues Axe and Dixon, wrote that “Researchers at the Biologic Institute are convinced that [the theory of intelligent design can lead to good science]”. (Quoted by Forrest)
Forrest says, "A May 2007 search of scientific databases for peer-reviewed articles by Gauger, a signatory to the Discovery Institute’s list of scientists who “dissent from Darwinism” (Discovery Institute, 2007), yielded only three identifiable articles, written in 1985, 1987, and 1993, all outdated by scientific standards (Gauger et al., 1985; Gauger et al., 1987; Gauger and Goldstein, 1993)." ( Forrest, 2007 p. 24)
This is the sole mention of the petition in the source. Is there another source for the assertion in our article? I think it's clear this won't do. 86.44.28.186 ( talk) 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the current edit war between WAS and others. Please have a look at Talk:Rosalind_Picard#Proposing_some_language. There is no reliable source anywhere on this planet that backs up the statement that "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism or Dissent From Darwinism, is a petition promoting intelligent design." Before the final language was nailed down on the Picard page I asked repeatedly for such a source and none was ever produced. You should at least consider implementing the language used on that page because it is clearly more accurate. Regards. PelleSmith ( talk) 03:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted
that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.”
The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradictionto the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.
For this I count two sources, by prominent notable faculty members. Both are very well cited. By WP:SPS, these are WP:RS.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well philosophers and political scientists and sociologists are relevant, because they are the people that deal with "appeals to authority", not biologists. But there are lots of other potential sources [4] [5] by Matt Inlay, clearly notable in this area, as well as Ed Brayton [6]. I am sure I could find more with a bit of work. Is there any doubt that this is an appeal to authority? It appears to satisfy all the definitional requirements and does note even really need a source in fact.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Assent to what? I am confused. The list is obviously an "appeal to authority", just as it is obviously a "list". We have 3 sources for it by notable figures. I am sure we can get more. And what is wrong with Forrest's essay? She is a notable figure. The same material is in articles and books by Forrest. We can draw on those as well, but by
WP:SPS her statements in such a venue are reliable sources. I do not understand what your problem is. And besides which, we do things by consensus here, not by your dictates or fiats or fatwahs. Sorry.--
Filll (
talk |
wpc)
15:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The source for calling it an 'appeal to authority' is this: [7]
Intelligent design proponents meanwhile celebrate it as a soon-to-be-mature alternative that will eventually overthrow evolution's status as a dominant scientific paradigm. Author Lee Strobel in a Christianity Today interview said "one of the fastest growing phenomenon is scientists who are doubtful of the claims of Darwinism" as "there's more than 300 scientists with doctorates from major universities who've now signed this statement saying that they are skeptical of the claims of neo-Darwinism." (Science that Backs Up Faith - Christianity Today Magazine) This appeal to authority is coupled with the scientifically recognized fact (since 1965) that the universe has a finite origin now figured at 13.7 billion years ago (from work via Hubble and Keck telescope evidence, among cosmologists). Strobel construes the origin to mean that "whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause." Readers should recognize circular reasoning here; but if not, they may recognize the absence of an empirically testable claim.
...which is clearly calling A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism ("there's more than 300 scientists with doctorates from major universities who've now signed this statement saying that they are skeptical of the claims of neo-Darwinism.") an appeal to authority. This statement is not referring to "a 2002 sampling of 460 Ohio science professors" (which only comes up several paragraphs later). Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)