Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 68

This is an archive of past discussions about Intelligent design. 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 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Hatnote text

I've created this section because we have a couple editors going back and forth on the hatnote. In order to avoid an edit war, let's BRD. The issue appears to stem from how specific the hatnote ought to be. Is there a reason to specify who the DI is in the hatnote ("public policy think tank organization")? There's no disambig on the Discovery Institute article, so I don't see why this would be necessary. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@MisterDub: I'm the person who wrote the hatnote, and agree that "public policy hink tank organization" is unnecessary. But something is. Namely, a tip off that this is about a form of creationism, and not about a general system of belief or philosophy. I propose:

This article is about intelligent design, a form of Creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. For other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).

Likewise, the word creationism has to appear very early in the lead, because that is the most essential element of the definiton of the term. Right now, it is buried deeper down in the lede, so that readers may be mislead that they are reading about a general religious belief or philosphical concept. I propose:

"Intelligent design is a form of creatonism based on the proposition that...".

This will head off a lot of the readers who are expecting to read about the general religious or philosopical concept. Thoughts? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If we need to identify ID with creationism in the hatnote, I think your first suggestion is fine. Or similarly, "This article is about ~~intelligent design,~~ a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. For other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation)" should do well. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the end, "Discovery Institute," is that it can confuse some readers (such as myself) into thinking that it is an educational institution. When I clicked through the link, I was slightly confused and surprised at the the first sentence, which is why I specifically stated in the hatnote that it is a "public policy think tank," which it most certainly is. I propose: This article is about intelligent design as promulgated by the Discovery Institute public policy think tank organization." I don't think there's a need to mention creationism. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You have hit the nail on the head: this article has been edited to death for a small group of WP editors who know all this stuff. It is not written to inform the general public. Yopienso (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your point about readers mistaking the Discover Institute with a legitimate educational institution. But creationism does have to be mentioned, for the reason I have have given above. How about this:

"This article is about intelligent design, a form of Creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a public policy think tank. For other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation)."

What do you think? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is a lot more clear, but now I think there is a problem with the specific reference. The disambiguation note should probably be more general; the fact that "ID was promulgated by the Discovery Institute" is too specific. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that this hatnote's purpose is to distinguish ID from the teleological argument. So let's ask, "How would we do this in the simplest, clearest manner?" To me, the difference is stark: one is creationism, the other is philosophy. Maybe we don't mention the DI at all (and remove any unnecessary confusion about that organization), but simply say it's a form of creationism: This article is about a form of creationism. For other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The proposal above is general enough to easily let readers know what the subject is about. And also, the other problem with referencing Discovery "Institute" is that: Is it really the only organization that proposed these ideas/thinking? I'm pretty sure there are many other organizations who have contributed to this set of ideas. Discovery Institute isn't the sole notable one. Should it be the only one to be specifically mentioned? There are other organizations as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are other organizations that support ID, but the leaders of ID (those who've advanced the theory) are all associated with the DI. Furthermore, the verb promulgate means to "promote or make widely known (an idea or cause)" and doesn't necessitate they be the only organization involved with ID; it is still true that ID is/was "made widely known" due to the efforts of the DI, even if other organizations support their cause. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

thanks and comment on falsifiability

As someone who agrees with thearticle, may I thank the editors, who have put so much in and deal with so much on the talkpage ? (I think there is a sociology or psychology PhD thesis to be mined from the talk) As a practicing scientist,I think the reliance among - shorthand here as i don't know the right term - liberals on "falsifiability" is a bit misplaced. While it may be important in legal circles,and discussed by historians and philosophers of science, I don't think practicing scientists actually care that much. regards and again thanksCinnamon colbert (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. Falsifiability is the corner stone that holds the idea of science together; without it a proposition can't exist in the realm of science. It's a huge aspect of the philosophy of science (and there aren't liberals or conservatives in any meaningful sense here, though there is positivism and post-positivism). I couldn't tell you if most scientists care about it, but I imagine the ones who understand it sure do. If you're saying that many scientists aren't educated in the philosophy of science then I sadly agree with you. It's an unfortunately state of affairs. SÆdon^talk 03:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the point that need be emphasized here is that this article needs to be closely aligned with how the topic is described by the most authoritative sources. And it does, in terms of the facts anyway. The "tone", which may be too pushy here, is probably more of a factor here to most of its more fair criticisms. I attribute the "tone" rather than the problems with its factual content for sending too many critics haywire intent to correct it by bolstering some mythic depiction they've formed in their minds about what ID is.

The task of writing with the appropriate tone is a more delicate business than putting the proper facts in order. That task has been made much harder than it otherwise should be here because a) confusion is no accident-DI explicitly promotes and exploits it, b) editors weighing in here are too often bringing these notions of ID from this ID "ethersphere" rather than reliable sources and c) other editors, as a result, are driven to reactionary overkill to create an environment where solid claims will actually stick rather than be weaseled by a million cuts into la-la-landishness. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine that someone who has gone through a doctoral program wouldn't fully understand the need of Falsifiability for a hypothesis, it's something that's taught in undergrad level, and something that would be absolutely necessary to know at grad level since that's when your formulating your own research and hypothesizes. To make that claim makes it very likely you have no science background and definitely not a doctoral background. — raeky t 07:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Undirected meaning in article

Why does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undirected or Undirected in the opening paragraph of the ID article redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(mathematics) instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness ? Undirected is they synonym for Randomness and random is the semantic opposite of non-random(Design), which is a pattern with a Purpose.

But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-random redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness, is the intention of the Wikipedia editors to assert that randomness is the same thing as non-random? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be careful with linking to the Randomness page anyway, as that term is used in different ways. For example, random can mean disordered, unpredictable (at least to some extent), or unguided by an intelligence. I think the best way to convey this meaning via Wikilink would be to link undirected to the Wikitionary definition of unintentional. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Random's majority metaphor is disorder or a pattern without a purpose. Dictionaries define the majority metaphor. There isn't such a thing as a literal meaning, all of language is an IC metaphor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The wording "an undirected process such as natural selection" is that used by ID proponents, but is rather vague and inaccurate, and we should not be trying to guess the translation of definition of "undirected" in that context. It's wrong because natural selection is directed by the environment of organisms, an environment that includes other organisms. What they are trying to convey is a lack of purpose in natural processes, the purpose they have in mind is the divine purpose central to teleology, but if we want to convey that we need a reliable secondary source making that point, not some dictionary definition of a word with multiple meanings. . dave souza, talk 18:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The ID and YEC premise are that all semantic objects can only be used to represent a pattern with a purpose or a pattern without a purpose. Those opposed to ID have the premise that this Platonic primary binary contrasts is incorrect and that there is an assumed third option. See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design. Thus the issue is not what does Natural Selection mean but what is meant with this semantic construct,because its majority metaphorical meaning as derived from a dictionary is the oxymoron purposeless purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

IP, I don't quite comprehend what you're saying. I understand binary pairs, which seems to be what you're getting at, but how do they relate to this article? How does the purpose-accident binary (or whatever you would call it), whether or not it is a true dichotomy, affect the term unguided as quoted from the DI? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Any changes to the article ought to be made because of verifiability in reliable sources or better conformance to Wikipedia policies. It would also be helpful to present one of them as your justification for amending this article, otherwise these discussions can continue endlessly. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design#Majority_and_minority_metaphor for what I mean with Platonic opposites and the book Tautological Oxymorons by John D. Brey - If deconstruction is easily absorbed into the apophatic behemoth supporting Western metaphysics, what would happen if Western metaphysics applied deconstruction to the modern scientific materialism which acts as the cornerstone of the worldview setting itself in opposition to Western metaphysics?Tautological Oxymorons is an attempt to deconstruct the language and logic used to present scientific materialism as though it were a viable alternative to pre-Enlightenment theology, philosophy, and mythology. By examining modern scientific materialism in the light of language (and proper language use) we can see that much that's taken for granted as 'obvious' and a mere 'given' (within the context of scientific materialism) is rather (when carefully examined in the context of precise language usage) nothing more than sheer unadulterated absurdity! http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Tautological_Oxymorons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid all that is all off topic. Agree with Dave Souza that it's pointless to interpret what the DI means by "undirected". Semantic analysis of the type you are suggesting would be original research and synthesis. If you have CONCRETE proposals about the wording or contents of the articles, backed up with reliable independent secondary sources, then by all means start a new section and present your proposal there, concisely, clearly and on-topic. This thread has wandered far too deep into WP:FORUM territory, and should be terminated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The abstract authority Mr.ID does not exist, what you mean is that some leading figure in the ID movement such as Dembski has not defined what he means with undirected. There is no language without a motive, who is this person that has not defined his terms? If you don't know what Dembski means with undirected how could you then conclude that he is erroneous in his views.

No, we mean that the source from which the definition is taken is the Discovery Institute, and it is published without mention of an author. Also, that Scratchpad wiki is not a reliable source (especially since, after reading most of it, it appears to be heavily biased, poorly written, and completely irrelevant) and cannot be used as justification for any change here. We prefer secondary sources over primary ones, and this book doesn't seem to have any reviews (after a brief Google search); Amazon doesn't even have a single, customer review for it! The next question on that DI's FAQ page, however, asks if evolution is incompatible with ID. The answer contains the following (emphasis added):

“

However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.

”

Additionally, Stephen C. Meyer has written the following article which also explains a bit of ID (emphasis added):

“

Why [is the appearance of design illusory]? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view, natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being directed by an intelligence.

In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed.

”

It seems from these sources that the term unguided is set against "a guiding intelligence," and unintentional is the intended meaning ( :D ). Assuming that this is not just my interpretation (is it?), I support Wikilinking the term unguided to the Intention article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

From these sources it would be more accurate to say that "unguided" means "undesigned", "lacking direction by a designer" or "unpredictable and purposeless", and while that exposes circular reasoning in ID, we really need a secondary source for interpretation rather than trying to fathom the DI's misdirection. . . dave souza, talk 16:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

MisterDub, in what way is unguided or unintentional the same thing as Intentionality or purpose? See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Purpose1 and after googling "meaningless sentence" we find http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence at nr.4 because if you view is that random/non-random , good/bad are the same thing we have Newspeak Orwelian doublethink: the power of holding two contradictory beliefs and accepting both of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

IP, you are reading into this too much. No one is claiming that intentional is the same as unintentional, or random is the same as non-random, etc. The concepts represented by these terms have their respective articles, and the reader is left to apply any negating factors him- or herself. And again, that Scratchpad wiki is not a reliable source. If you want to make a change, please be clear about what you want and present reliable sources for verifiability. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

http://thesaurus.com/browse/undirected?s=t states that the synonym for 'undirected' is purposeless and the antonym is purpose. You disagree with the thesaurus on this point? Whenever I try to link 'undirected' to http://thesaurus.com/browse/undirected?s=t to its definition namely 'having no goal' you remove the link insisting that the thesaurus is incorrect. Would you mind elaborating why. Note that the thesaurus is only providing two Platonic binary opposites, there are no third options. In your world view Platonic opposites don't exist because they derive their authority from Genesis 1 and Revelation the last book. In other words you are using volitional type language to express a view where such volition does not exist to you. As a materialist you don't believe in volition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

IP, no one is disagreeing with any thesaurus, and please refrain from commenting on your fellow editors. Your edit was reverted because linking these terms is publishing original research, unless you have some secondary sources making the connection explicit. I don't really think it's necessary to define terms tangentially related to the article anyway, but I tried finding sources for your change and, as primary sources from an entity known to be disingenuous, they were not strong enough to justify the edit. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.arn.org/docs/guides/stan_gd1.pdf and ID think tank asserts that natural selection is an unguided unintelligent process. Why then isn't it a stupid process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

While it could be argued that ARN and any ID think tank is a stupid process, you seem to think that "an unguided unintelligent process" would be "a stupid process". While I don't know if you're an advocate of intelligent falling theory, do you think gravity is "guided" or do you think it is a stupid process? Thought we'd fall for that one? . . dave souza, talk 21:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In the Youtube video on Type-III secretory mechanism Kenneth Miller states that natural selection is blind. Why isn't it then stupid? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2alpk8PUd4 Gravity only represents itself as a pattern. Design is a pattern with a purpose, that represents something other than itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source, so this information can't be included in the article. This is all arguing semantics anyhow. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A religious proposition

User Abtract has added an adjective I feel unnecessary to the article, and possibly even WP:OR. The justification for the initial edit was that it makes it clear that this isn't a scientific position, but a religious one; however, the term proposition does not imply any connection to science, the next sentence states that ID is creationism (obviously not scientific), the whole of the lead makes it clear that ID is not scientific, and many religious organizations accept evolution and criticize ID. I see no reason for this change and it could be interpreted as being endorsed by religion when it's outright rebuked by many religious groups: a religiously motivated proposition isn't necessarily a religious one. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As you explained, perhaps religiously motivated is a better adjective to distinguish what the topic is about. (It's best to be clear than ambiguous). - M0rphzone (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see a need for any adjective in that first sentence. It seems we're getting into a habit of slamming ID every chance we get by stating that it's a religious idea in every sentence. If people are adamant about making this clear right out of the chute, I'd suggest we rewrite the lead to more closely resemble the Intelligent design (disambiguation) page. Something like the following, perhaps:

“

Intelligent design is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute, which defines it as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".

”

This way, the first thing you see is that it's a form of creationism, followed immediately by the DI's definition. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I heartily endorse that suggestion. Creationism is the most important word in the definition of ID. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and so was bold. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My problem with it is that it's been attached to a sourced claim and that's not what the source says. In articles about controversial topics, there's little hope of getting any claim to "stick" without a good citation linked to it, and deviating in any way from what the linked citation leads to trouble. This change is almost sure to cause more problems than it solves. The claim was fine just as it was, before the tweaks. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've divided the sentence so that the creatonism claim is no longer linked to the sources cited. It is instead amply sourced in the rest of the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't fine before because mention of both creationism and the DI are essential elements of the definition of DI, and should appear very early in the lede. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the change - it's more readable for one thing. But it leaves the last of the paragraph out of tune. While thinking how I can fix it, the "politically conservative think tank" bit was one issue in the way. Where did that come from? I couldn't find it stated in the linked citations. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my suggestion seriously and working on it so assiduously. Abtract (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Abtract. We're all here to improve the article.

Professor marginalia and Dominus Vobisdu, good call on changing the sentence structure. I've looked into the "politically conservative think tank" bit and found this (which doesn't explicitly say it, but implies it heavily), this, and this. The last link was written by Philip Gold, who used to be the "director of defense and aerospace studies at Seattle's Discovery Institute" according to this (at the very bottom).

As for the "out of tune" part of that first paragraph, would moving "a politically conservative think tank" to the first sentence help?. The first sentence would read: "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank." And the last sentence would then read: "The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute and believe the designer to be the Christian God." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

ID and the traditional design argument

Possible source: Feist, Richard; Sweet, William (2007). Religion and the Challenges of Science. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 48–49. The notion of 'intelligent design' has gained much attention in recent years. However, it is important to distinguish this modern understanding of design from the traditional position. For intelligent design theorists like Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski, design is associated with biological structures (termed 'irreducibly complex') that purportedly could not evolve by natural processes. However, the traditional interpretation of design focusses on the beauty and complexity in nature and does not deal with the mechanisms by which these processes arose. . . dave souza, talk 13:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a point I've been trying to get across for a long time. There is no historical continuity between ID nad earlier uses of the teleological argument, from Aristotle to Paley. The term "intelligent design" in its present incarnation did not exist until "Of Panda's and People". Thaxton clearly states he got the phrase from a NASA scientist, and, judging from his comment, was unaware that the term had been used before in philosophy. Thaxton gave the phrase the meaning it has now. The connection with earlier uses came afterward, and is thus coincidental. That is why I want to delete the first two paragraphs of the "History of the concept" section and the entire "Origin of the term" section, as they have nothing to do with Intelligent Design (TM). Basically, the subject of this article has no history at all before Thaxton except Creation Science, which it clearly is a continuation of. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about removing anything from the "History of the concept" section. One could say the difference between the teleological argument and intelligent design is that the latter is proposed as science. Or in other words, ID proponents want to prove the teleological argument true through scientific experimentation (to their credit, they did devise a couple of testable, though falsified, hypotheses). I think having a WP:SUMMARY of the teleological argument is therefore justified.

I will agree that the first section in "Origin of the term" has no relevance to the article. Or, rather, it can easily be condensed to a sentence or two that precedes the following "Of Pandas and People" section, which shows the origin of the term in its modern usage (the relevant part). I think it would be enough to say that the term was used in a philosophical/religious manner before its adoption by American creationists, while being careful not to present it as though the term was used in greater prominence than it was.

As for the source, we could include the biological nature of intelligent design in the article as a means to distinguish it from the teleological argument: whereas the teleological argument relies on a general sense of apparent design in nature, intelligent design focuses specifically on the biological aspect (i.e. the evidences purportedly falsifying the modern evolutionary synthesis). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We could, but why would we want to? Clearly design in living creatures is biological. I'm not seeing how dumbing down this article and spoon feeding the reader, thereby introducing a bit of inaccuracy, could improve it. I'd prefer to leave it accurate, and if the reader is too ignorant to realize that living things are biological in nature then their ignorance is beyond the scope of this article to cure. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. The teleological argument isn't necessarily talking about living creatures or biology, but any feature of/in the universe that appears to have design and purpose. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is specific to biology. Including this information may help the reader with the distinction between ID and the teleological argument, therefore reducing the number of complaints/concerns equivocating the two. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there is a misunderstanding somewhere. ID is a teleological argument. You're saying you ant to remove that from this article and create a false "distinction between" the two, and your argument is that since there are other teleological arguments which are not biological, then we shouldn't mention that ID is a teleological argument? How can this make sense? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. I don't want to remove any information about ID being a teleological argument. I'm merely suggesting we could add a sentence/clause in the "Origin of the concept" section that distinguishes ID from other teleological arguments, as is described in the source presented by dave souza. Hopefully that clears things up. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that clears things up enormously. I misread what you were saying, it seems. What verbiage do you have in mind? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking we could add a sentence after the first one in the third paragraph of the "Origin of the concept" section. This section begins with, "Intelligent design also has Paley's argument from design at its centre". I'm thinking of something like the following: "And, whereas teleological arguments traditionally 'focus on the beauty and complexity in nature and not the mechanisms by which these processes arose', intelligent design is associated with 'biological structures that purportedly could not evolve by natural processes.'" I'm not fond of the use of direct quotes here, but you'll at least get the gist of my proposal. If we could paraphrase this better, I think it would fit well. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Part of a series on Philosophy of religion"?

Is this sidebar of any particular relevance to this article? ID isn't even mentioned in the main Philosophy of religion article, and its relevance to philosophical arguments for the existence of God more applies to Teleological argument than to this article itself. The sidebar in question appears to be a recent creation mainly by a single editor. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Monton on Behe

The article currently states:

Philosopher of science Bradley Monton defends Behe on this point, noting that Behe does not view every complex biological system whose evolution is currently unknown as irreducibly complex. This shows, Monton continues, that Behe is not appealing to ignorance, but is "giving a positive argument that it's unlikely for such systems to evolve without an intelligent designer." He says that ID proponents predict that we will find evidence of a designer.

This appears to be WP:Complete bollocks. The only differentiating factor between Behe's IC examples and other complex biological systems is that that Behe is particularly incredulous of (another name for the argument from ignorance is the argument from personal incredulity), and ignorant of the research on, the evolutionary pathways for the former. Monton has therefore failed to offer a genuinely distinguishing difference, and his argument appears to resemble a special pleading.

Given that Monton's claims have not been subjected to peer review within the philosophy of science academic community, that they seem unlikely to have wide acceptance within that community, and Morton is not himself a particularly prominent member of that community, I would question why we should be including his fallacious views. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a somewhat peculiar argument. (Does he propose a scientist must be taken seriously who argues that the sequence of complex events necessary for the Moon to have acquired its current form naturally are so unlikely that it is more reasonable to conclude it was molded by an intelligent sculptor?) But the issue is Monton's notability, not the quality of his argument. Also, I don't think the removed claim was synth; it just wasn't sourced properly. The citation (which is still there) was added as an external link to the Monton citation. It should have been placed as a separate reference. Notability may be an issue for that citation as well, however. ID is so well documented by more prestigious and/or notable parties, and we should stick to those. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. If further sources can be found giving prominence to these claims (either positive or negative), an argument might be made for reincluding them. The PT source doesn't mention Behe (plus, as a blog, doesn't add much prominence). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I also ran a Google scholar search of citations of Monton's book] -- and could find little evidence that it is viewed positively or given much weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

WTF?

Why the hell is an editor edit-warring to delete a ref to fucking Nature using "paywall" as a rationale? Seriously, there's no reason for that. This seems to have degenerated into simple disruption. Guettarda (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, unless I am mistaken, I RESTORED the ref to fucking Nature using paywall as a rationale, and informed, and informed Mark about the policy on his user page. Maybe I fucked it up, in which cause please feel free to repair it. Have a nice day :) Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear; that wasn't a reference to your edit, or Dave's. Guettarda (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I removed that link to defuse Mark's objection: the DOI works as a link to the same page (for me, anyway}. The main this was that Mark shouldn't have removed the reference, and the guideline he cited doesn't suggest that he should remove paywalled references. He also seems to have thought wrongly that Nature (journal) is Yank, so I've pointed out that link on his talk page. As for a nice day, it's been rather windy and rainy, but the forecast for tomorrow is remarkably optimistic. . . dave souza, talk 17:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please explain what possible difference it makes whether a source is American or not? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume "yank" meant "pull out" in this context, not American. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my misunderstanding. Dare I suggest that yank pay link masquerading as source is perhaps an Americanism? Not common usage in this context in UK English. . . dave souza, talk 19:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yank as in "yank out weeds from the lawn". American usage, and implying a rather negative assessment of the thing being "yanked". Guettarda (talk)

The point is that when I restored the ref I identified it as a source, and he still removed it again. The first time might be a mistake, the second removal was not. It's that total lack of willingness to work in a collegial, collaborative manner that makes this behaviour stray into disruption. Guettarda (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of weasel words

This article uses weasel words that are not clarified. I have tried to clean these up, but keep getting reverted, and a message to take it to the talk page? Why is that? What is there to discuss? Wikipedia Style guide is very clear. Weasel words deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. See words to watch and WP:WEASEL for examples. To me it shows a bias towards one of the subjects in the article, and is not in the interest of Wikipedia's style guidelines. You guys are clearly camping on this page!

1st edit // clarify, remove weasel word
2nd & 3rd edits // weasel word + // weasel word, you state one but don't want to state the others? This is known as weaselling
4th and 5th edits // this article clearly contains weasel words that some authors do not wish to acknowledge, see previous edits that keep getting reverted; also read the definition of weasel words: Anywhere "some" is used without attribution... this is weaselling

Mark Renier (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought my edit summary was clear. You can't just change one sentence without regard to the rest of the paragraph. If you read the paragraph, you'd see that the statement in question ("some intelligent design proponents...avoid the argument from poor design") is connected not simply with Nelson, but also with Behe and Johnson. That isn't "weaseling", that's proper framing of an idea - starting with a general statement and moving on to more specific examples.

The second problem with the edit I reverted is even bigger. You changed a (supported) generalisation into a specific statement about Nelson. That changed the meaning, putting far more emphasis on Nelson (which in itself could be a problem) and orphaning the statements about Behe and Johnson from their proper context. The change you made broke the structure of the paragraph. Which is a problem. Not only was your rationale incorrect, your action also degraded the quality of the writing and reduced the accuracy of the section. Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My intent was to make the article MORE clear by removing the ambiguity (use of "some") without references. Help rewrite those sentences then so they do not use weasel words. Surely if there is need for "some" then the article can be better clarified by specifying exactly "who" the "some" are. Mark Renier (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also important to note that your response to being reverted was far from optimal. Try using the talk page after the first editor reverts you. Don't wait until the third person does. If someone disagrees with your edit, repeating the same rationale over and over isn't going to make them suddenly see the light. Make your argument. Respond to what others said - if you didn't understand what I had to say, you could have asked. And seriously - "you guys are clearly camping on this page"? Accusing people of misdeeds isn't a good way to start a conversation. Not to mention that it's a rather weak argument - there are 1141 people with this page on their watch list. No one is conspiring against you - it's just one of the better-watched pages in Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you are probably right about it being a better-watched page. I prefer to edit the articles and not the talk pages. Almost every time I have to come to the talk page it is because of favoritism of the subject, not the article. Making five edits of the style that I do on other pages and having ALL of them reverted is strong evidence this article is no different. I DID attribute my edits with WP:WEASEL but not words to watch: these are Wikipedia guidelines that state my case. I would ask, why do these standards NOT make my case? Please help make some edits and remove the ambiguities of "some". Mark Renier (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are two generic statements, one of them is a weasel problem and one of them is not:

Some people believe that snow white is based on a true story.
Some people, such as Fred Nottingham, believe that Snow White is based on a true story. Other believers exist as well, including the head of the Snow White was Real!™ foundation, Barney Addelson.

While both sentences use the word "some," the second sentence is clarified by later writing and so is not using "some" in a weasel context. In at least one of the edits you made, "some" was immediately followed by exactly who, and yet you put a who tag in. SÆdon^talk 04:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL actually says it pretty well: Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint...The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution (emphasis added). Guettarda (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Guettarda and Dominus, instead of warning Mark about revert warring and telling him to take it to the talk page, why didn't you two start a discussion about it before engaging in revert warring yourselves? Mark was making good faith edits to this article, wouldn't you agree? Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you should never revert-war over placement of a tag on an article, as you did with the "Weasel" tag, until discussion on it is complete. A tag does not alter the text of the article, it invites further discussion by interested editors. I will leave a note on your talk page also. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Common practice is that the person making an edit brings their edit to the talk page after being reverted. There is no policy requirement that one start a discussion every time they revert. If that was the case I would have wasted hundreds of hours on talk page discussions that would have gone nowhere because the reversions I've made were for obvious reasons (as is the case here because again, these were not weasel words). SÆdon^talk 05:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

When an edit is obviously made in good faith, as Mark's were, then any reverts without discussion are unnecessarily confrontational. It doesn't hurt at all to talk it out first. It means that the edit might stick or it might not, but at least there won't have been any edit warring. Anyway, not all the reverts were of text edits. There was at least one revert of a discussion tag. That is clear revert warring. Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Mark, I notice from your contribution history that you have been very busy lately cleaning up articles in a wide variety of topics. Have you had anyone revert your edits as quickly and as brusquely in any of those other articles, including reverting your attempts to place discussion tags, as has occurred here? If so, then Wikipedia appears to have a big problem. Cla68 (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Cla68, it is common practice to review the sequence of events before accusing people of "revert warring". Your claims are false and your twisting of policy is nothing more than harassment and disruption. You've been sanctioned by the arbcomm for your battlefield conduct. Please don't bring that behaviour of yours here. Guettarda (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I thought WP:WEASEL spells it out pretty clearly, also. "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." If you use Some, then you must attribute the statement: who? If you do give an attribution, then we don't need Some in that sentence, or the following sentence in one case here. The word Some implies there are others that are not attributed. Using the word Some in there does not add any more information. If you know who made the claim, then reveal it to the reader. If there is no attribution, its actually disinformation. Notice there are several instances of the word Some in this article that I did not touch because I believe they were properly in context. The writer can also be more succinct by combining the meaning of the sentences into conveying one thought. Mark Renier (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The standard meaning of "some" is "an unspecified number;" in logic "some" means "at least one." Neither definition implies that there are others beyond those who are mentioned. SÆdon^talk 18:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I never thought I'd possibly be arguing for the status quo in this article (which needs substantive changes) but if it's in the sources (or "sky is blue" certain) that more than just that one person do/say that, then I would think that "some" would be a reasonable summary. If not, not. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right, Saedon, Some here means unspecified. But Wiki is about specifics. We want attributions here. Get specific. unsupported attributions : "... can pad out sentences without adding any useful information and may disguise a biased view." I have demonstrated that I can reword this sentence to remove the useless information, and it's possibly disguised biased view. Mark Renier (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "Some intelligent design proponents...", how about saying, "The following intelligent design proponents..."? Then the meaning doesn't change, you get rid of ambiguous Some, and you can keep tacking names on before the end of the paragraph. Mark Renier (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Both of your examples above should be rewritten. The first example by your admission; it's a weasel. The second example is also a weasel but it is in disguise. "Other believers exist as well, including the head of the Snow White was Real!™ foundation, Barney Addelson." is not a full sentence (because it does not stand on it's own as a complete thought) and needs grammar fixes. If the 2nd sentence stands with the preceding sentence, follow Brown Little and use a semicolon to complete the thought between the two, like this: "Some people, such as Fred Nottingham, believe that Snow White is based on a true story; others believe as well, including the head of the Snow White was Real!™ foundation, Barney Addelson." Because Wikipedia is about verifiability of its contents, after fixing your incorrect grammar I would further rewrite it as "Fred Nottingham believes that Snow White is based on a true story. The head of the Snow White was Real!™ foundation, Barney Addelson, also believes that Snow White is based on a true story." Then you also get rid of the colloquialism "as well" which is also quite trite. Just write factual statements. Do not editorialize. MOS:OPED There is no need to be overly obtuse about just stating facts, and hiding meaning behind ambiguous words like Some. Mark Renier (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me try to phrase this differently. If the article said: One means by which the problem of poor design in nature has been avoided is through the assertion that people have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design. This changes none of the meaning of the sentence, it merely converts it to the passive voice. There's nothing wrong with that sentence (except that it's clunky and poorly written) - it stands or falls on whether it is supported by a source. Guettarda (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Try again. Stop working with offhand examples, and start working with the actual contested content. You dragged me to this talk page to get consensus on the changes I proposed, right? Your example does not even have the contested word Some in it. Mark Renier (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(a) I didn't "drag" you anywhere, and (b) that's precisely the point - you can remove the word "some" without changing the meaning. Thus, the word "some" isn't the problem. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, like other guidelines and policies, should never be read narrowly like a legal document. It's a useful guideline to avoid making mistakes. It does not say "kill with fire". In fact, it clearly explains that "some" is perfectly acceptable when used like this. Guettarda (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are rationalizing now; you are trying to find a situation to prove your point. Drop the examples and work with the actual text. Do you guys always waste so much resources on talk pages with your feet on the brakes like this? This is for the first of five edits, involving only three words! Mark Renier (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the text. If you understood WP:WEASEL, you'd understand that. There's PLENTY wrong with your edit to the text - it breaks the meaning of the sentence. But, you're right, we should not the "wast[ing] so much [sic] resources on talk pages". You appear not to get it - not WP:WEASEL, not the idea of collaborative editing, not the idea of consensus (as we use it in Wikipedia). The statement, as it stands, is accurate, it's within policy and it is (per WP:FACR 1(a)) relatively well-written. Your proposed addition is inaccurate and badly written.

If you want to propose changes and work collaboratively to ensure that the changes are actually improvements, then I'd be happy to work with you. All you're doing right now though is arguing that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Please stop doing that. Guettarda (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Now there's a recommendation! From someone with 41K edits, also! Thanks, yes, I will gladly stop trying to make minor edits to a page where the consensus makers recommend argumentum ad populum as a solution, Guettarda. Mark Renier (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mark, again I apologize for the reception you are receiving in response to your good faith attempts to improve this article. As I said below, please list your proposed changes to the article and, I at least, will attempt to civilly discuss them with you. Cla68 (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Page protected

Due to the reverts I am seeing in the article, I have protected the page for 3 days as an alternative to blocking anyone for edit-warring, so that everyone can continue discussion and hopefully come to a resolution. When the protection expires, resumption of contentious edits may result in further protection as well as blocks. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So when does the vote take place? Who gets to say the final "OK", is that you, Amatulic? Do you post a poll here and people vote or what? Is there a deadline to register to vote also? What is the next action? Mark Renier (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no voting. The burden is on you to create a consensus for the changes you want. If you want to create a poll or RFC or use some other mechanism to measure consensus, go right ahead. If I may suggest an approach, perhaps try proposing each change you want to make, individually in subsections, with your supporting points for each. Then see how others respond. The end result may be an improvement over both your version and the status quo version. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

{ec}No voting, just discussion and proposals to improve the article. Instead of making changes to the article after the protection is removed, we should talk about the changes we want made here until we come to a new consensus. Once consensus is reached, we can change the article. As the primary exponent for these changes, I suggest that you list the edits you want made and the reasons for doing so; other editors will respond with their reasons and we will eventually reach a consensus. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh-huh...who is "we"? What you mean is, somebody other than me. Obviously, it won't be me, since you only need two dissenters to force an editor to the talk page and one sympathetic editor to protect that page. My edits are reverted and now the page is locked down. From my point, I don't see I have a vote in this crap at all. I link in policies and post valid arguments, but I still do not see any good responses. The content-to-noise ratio is very low for this article. Mark Renier (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mark, please assume good faith: the we I mentioned does indeed include you, as well as all other editors who are concerned with the reverted changes. I actually think some of those instances of some could be removed, but we need to make sure they're removed in a way that preserves the cited information and doesn't leave the grammar in shambles. Please list your requested changes and we can work together to ensure the article improves in quality. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I do AGF, but with all due respect, Mr. Editor sir, I don't see me being involved at all in your "we" here. I have tried six times now to edit this article. Each time with individual attributions to standard WP. My net effect to this article still stands at zero characters, not because of my edits, but because of the reversions of those edits. Not helpful edits, just outright reversions. Net effect to this talk page is +2500 characters. Just to try and get through the first three-word edit. If all you need is two dissenters and one editor to block an editor, you guys have fun with your personal ambiguous article written by elite example givers and your patented revert/revert/page-protect scam...I must admit it is pretty effective in keeping out honest edits. I like to keep my C2N ratio over 95%, so will be heading off to a more productive use of my time, but I will stop back in every few days to make sure the page is being protected with just a single three-word edit backed by a standard wiki policy. Mark Renier (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's how this kind of thing works: someone is Bold, it is Reverted, then a Discussion on the Talk page arrives at consensus which is then applied to the article (WP:BRD). Instead of complaining about how we're adhering to this policy, please join in constructive dialogue. For instance, that first edit can be accomplished much easier by simply removing the word some and capitalizing the new first word of the sentence, which still makes it clear that there is more than one subject. The sentence in question would then read: "~~Some~~ iIntelligent design proponents such as Paul Nelson avoid the problem of poor design in nature by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design." The second and third edits were just WP:WEASEL tags (suggestions?), and the 4th and 5th edits instituted some poor grammar (unfortunately, it's locked that way now). These are the issues that concern me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Also Mark, from the admin's point of view, the admin doesn't care about the dispute. All that matters is stability. It is an admin's job to prevent disruption, and warring is disruptive. The version of the page at the time of locking it isn't a concern for the admin locking the page. In fact I have been accused of protecting m:The Wrong Version a number of times in the past. No matter what version is protected during a dispute, one side or the other will always be unhappy about it. That's just the way it goes.

You want to make changes. The WP:BURDEN is on you to create a consensus that those changes are necessary, or at least everyone should work out proposed edits that are acceptable all around. You have been advised above, by myself and MisterDub, on how you might proceed to accomplish this. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand wiki editing and building consensus; you can see my history, I work with it; sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. That's fine, I can handle constructive criticism, but there is no constructive criticism in these reversions to my edits, all the constructive criticism is here on the talk page where eventually it is archived i.e. wasted. Mark Renier (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you strive to keep your article to talk ratio at 95%, then consider the possibility that you might not actually understand how consensus-building works, especially for contentious articles such as this one. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Collaboration involves more than communicating through edit summaries. Collaboration, including constructive criticism and building consensus, happens on talk pages. That's what talk pages are for. From where I sit, I see that other editors have offered valid criticism on the edits they reverted and you have not yet substantiated your desired changes by addressing these concerns or by proposing alternatives that address these concerns. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Mark, could you please list your proposed changes below so that we can discuss each one individually? I apologize that your attempts to improve this article have been greeted with revert warring. Let's take your proposals one-by-one. OK? Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

He already did, at the beginning of this thread. I'll reproduce them here: [1] [2] [3]

The first one, as MisterDub already pointed out above, can be resolved simply by omitting "The" or "Some" from the first word of the sentence. If you guys can agree on that point, then work on alternatives to the other two. I locked this article because it's a content dispute in which both sides have valid arguments: On one hand, the article should reflect the sources accurately. On the other hand, the presence of weasel words, even if they are appropriate in this context, still appear as weasel words and should be rephrased if possible. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you and think it's really sad that Mark's good-faith efforts to improve the article were met with edit-warring and comments which could have been phrased with a more friendly tone on the article talk page. Anyway, later today I will try to suggest some compromise wording. Cla68 (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Cla68, but I'm going to beat you to it. :P As it stands, I see four edits that require our attention:

Some intelligent design proponents such as Paul Nelson avoid the problem of poor design in nature by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design. (Intelligent designer, paragraph 3, sentence 1)
Some scientists argue that even when taken as mere speculation, these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence. (Fine-tuned Universe, paragraph 2, sentence 2)
Arguments for intelligent design are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer. The majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that in their view the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God. (Religion and leading proponents, paragraph 1, sentences 1 and 2)
Stuart Burgess, Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are evangelical Protestants, Michael Behe is a Roman Catholic, Jonathan Wells is a member of the Unification Church. David Klinghoffer is Jewish, and Michael Denton, who is agnostic, are examples of Intelligent Design proponents who are Jewish or agnostic,. (Religion and leading proponents, paragraph 1, sentences 3 and 4)

My suggestions for these statements follow:

~~Some i~~Intelligent design proponents such as Paul Nelson avoid the problem of poor design in nature by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design.
Some scientists argue that, even when taken as mere speculation, these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence.
Although Aarguments for intelligent design are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer, Tthe majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that, in their view, the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God.
Stuart Burgess, Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are evangelical Protestants; Michael Behe is a Roman Catholic; and Jonathan Wells is a member of the Unification Church. Non-Christian proponents include David Klinghoffer, who is Jewish, and Michael Denton, who is agnostic~~, are examples of Intelligent Design proponents who are Jewish or agnostic~~.

As you can see, I really didn't know what to do with that second item. We could remove some and attribute the claim to the cited author as we did in the first edit, but I don't know who "PvM" is. Or we could add more citations and leave some as the first word. Or... ? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For starters, I strongly endorse #4. The original sentence was pretty badly crafted. Guettarda (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding #2, it needs a complete workover, since Pim van Meurs is a computer scientists, iirc. PT has generally been considered an RS, but you can't use his article to speak for "some scientists". Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
#3 also looks good to me.
With regards to #1, I'm going to take a look at what is it exactly that Pennock is saying before I discuss modifications. I'm concerned about changing the meaning - actually I'm a little concerned that the current wording my be a bit poorly crafted. Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding #2, I note that this sentence is sourced and the preceding one isn't. The first two sentences could be combined, eliminating the term "metaphysics", and still cite the same source. So instead of:

Scientists have generally responded that this argument cannot be tested and is therefore not science but metaphysics. Some scientists argue that even when taken as mere speculation, these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence.

How about this:

Scientists have generally responded that these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence and cannot be tested.

That pretty much sums up the cited source, I think. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Amatulić, I think that's a great way to revise that statement, though I too am concerned about the sourcing. If Pim van Meurs is not an expert in the relevant field, I think we either need to remove the sentence or find alternative citations supporting the claim. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought the name was uncommon enough that a quick search could resolve it. A search on Google Scholar gives several hits but the areas of interest indicate there may be different people with that name. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

@Guettarda: #1 is poorly supported. Pennock writes of both ID proponents and opponents addressing "imperfect design" in nature. Nelson's claim, per Pennock, is that scientists who offer exmples of imperfect design in support of biological evolution is a case where methodological naturalists are trying to play it both ways: that both intelligent design argument and imperfect design arguments presuppose "the intelligibility of theological assumptions about what God would or would not have done".

There's another error in the same paragraph. The Behe passages are good. But the Johnson/AIDS claim is wrong as it is worded. Johnson is not described in Pennock as making the claim about AIDS. Johnson, of course, is named as subscribing to the "purposeful design" argument, but not the notion that AIDS was designed as a punishment (that claim was made in passing on p280, and attributed to some unidentified evangelicals). Pennock himself, not Johnson, is using the purposeful creation of AIDS claim to illustrate the inadequacy of Johnson's "theistic science" to test the hypothesis, and Pennock should probably be given attribution in that passage. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Correction: the Johnson claim is actually not as far off as I describe above. His view of AIDS is better described a few paragraphs below what I'd been reading-I missed it initially. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I made changes #3 and #4 to the article since I haven't seen any disagreement on those edits. I'm still really critical of #2 as well, for the reasons cited earlier. Should we remove this claim entirely? And is #1 acceptable, per Professor marginalia's latest comments? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I located a book by Stenger that supports #2 and the entirety of Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape is a refutation of the fine-tuning argument, hence I added these citations to the rewritten sentence. I think that improves the grammar and citations for the section in question. I also made the change to #1, since it's just a minor edit. If anyone feels the source is not accurately portrayed here, he or she can remove/rephrase the sentence. Thanks, all! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Promulgated

Promulgation gives a specialist meaning, more general usage here as wikt:promulgate. My dictionary gives the general meaning as "promote or make widely known (an idea or cause)", the thesaurus suggests " they promulgated their own views: make known, make public, publicize, spread, communicate, propagate, disseminate, broadcast, promote, preach; literary bruit abroad." . . dave souza, talk 07:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And I don't think the word is that unusual to warrant explanation. It's a "SAT"-level word. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted this twice now and placed a 3RR warning on Mark's talk page. Absolutely ridiculous edit. SÆdon^talk 09:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

While I believe that the narrowing in the sentence (emblematic of the narrowing in the article) is incorrect, I think that "promulgated" is an appropriate word. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Would "proclaimed" be an adequate substitute? It doesn't have the connotation that it's their invention, but seems to cover the issue, otherwise. I have no objection to "promulgate", and this editor's actions appear similar to that of a now-blocked (for other reasons) IP. He couldn't be the IP, as he's been active longer; but he has (among other strange ideas) the idea that even obvious words should be linked, if the link is available. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, "proclaimed" wouldn't be better. "Promulgate" is exactly the right word. Thanks for the info about the IP, but, like you, I think it's unlikely. I've seen other editors go overboard on links before. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

{ec} No, proclaim isn't an accurate replacement. The DI might proclaim that ID is true, but they can't proclaim ID... that doesn't really make sense. Propound might be a decent substitute ("put forward (an idea or theory) for consideration by others" Oxford Dictionaries Online), but I still think it's less accurate than promulgate, which denotes a popularizing rather than an authoring.

And North8000, I'd really appreciate it if you refrained from complaining about the scope of this article in every comment you make. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I was supporting wording-in-question on on part of a sentence where I found the other part of that sentence to be problematic. So this is a natural clarification to make. Nevertheless, I do feel that the article has the noted severe problem. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean, "Cathago delenda est". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we're painfully aware of your opinion. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Both of you please lose the insulting smugness. I had a very solid argument (that there is substantial sourcing that ID is not limited to the DI version, and that the group here has decided to exclude it via relabeling away from its common name and correct name in the sources.) which folks here chose to avoid. You wore me out and I went away, and just make an occasional small comment to that effect (both times while supporting you on a different point) in the hopes that it will help it to someday get fixed. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation. As I recall, the only thing that needed fixing was your fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's naming policy, which multiple editors have explained to you repeatedly (and in excruciating detail). Please drop the stick. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a mis-characterization, complete with irrelevant links as insults. There was only ONE conversation which got even close to addressing the issue directly (you and I in a good conversation on my talk page User_talk:North8000#Your_participation_on_ID_page) and then, tellingly, you faded away right when we distilled it to the heart of the matter. North8000 (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean, right when I asked you to support your claim with WP:RSs and you failed to respond? And if you look through that first link, you'll see Jess also explaining WP:UCN to you, while the rest of us (myself included, at the time) were floundering around trying to figure out what the flying f*(^ you were talking about. Here's the deal: make a new section with a clear and concise proposition, supported by RSs, for the change you wish to make, or stop beating the dead horse! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 02:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I will drop the assertion that promulgated is the wrong word, in exchange for considering moving the statement to a later stage in the lead. At this point in the article, the reader knows nothing about what it is. I would lead with a factual statement along the lines of animal, mineral, vegetable, concept thing. To lead in with Promulgating assumes the reader knows something about the item already. It's better suited for elaboration at a later phase after the reader understands the first basic thing about the article. Give the article lead form and color, then talk about what it can do and what it is involved in. Something like, "Intelligent Design is a concept about <blah> <blah> <blah>". Maybe I am wrong and there is actual promulgation going on, but that would be its own section below in the article, wouldn't it? Mark Renier (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

We're not in a negotiation where we'll capitulate to a request in response to you offering to no longer push a previous request. There is a clear consensus that your attempt to remove/link promulgate from/in the article is inappropriate so that's kind of a moot point now. I don't agree with your new idea either; the only thing a reader is assumed to know is what the word promulgate means, which is a word I've understood since at least 9th grade. DI's promulgation of ID is an integral aspect of the subject and belongs exactly where it is. SÆdon^talk 06:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Mark, but your request is unreasonable and misses the mark by a mile. The article already starts out with a factual statement: "Intelligent Design is a form of creationism...", and the Discovery Institute is immediately mentioned as it is the most essential distinguishing feature of this form of creationism. "Concept" is a weak, namby-pamby word that really means nothing here. Your dislike of the word "promulgated" is completely unjustified. This is not Simple English Wikipedia, and the word is the exact correct word to use in this context. Consensus is abundantly clear in this regard. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of weasel words

This article uses weasel words that are not clarified. I have tried to clean these up, but keep getting reverted, and a message to take it to the talk page? Why is that? What is there to discuss? Wikipedia Style guide is very clear. Weasel words deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. See words to watch and WP:WEASEL for examples. To me it shows a bias towards one of the subjects in the article, and is not in the interest of Wikipedia's style guidelines. You guys are clearly camping on this page!

1st edit // clarify, remove weasel word
2nd & 3rd edits // weasel word + // weasel word, you state one but don't want to state the others? This is known as weaselling
4th and 5th edits // this article clearly contains weasel words that some authors do not wish to acknowledge, see previous edits that keep getting reverted; also read the definition of weasel words: Anywhere "some" is used without attribution... this is weaselling

Mark Renier (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought my edit summary was clear. You can't just change one sentence without regard to the rest of the paragraph. If you read the paragraph, you'd see that the statement in question ("some intelligent design proponents...avoid the argument from poor design") is connected not simply with Nelson, but also with Behe and Johnson. That isn't "weaseling", that's proper framing of an idea - starting with a general statement and moving on to more specific examples.

The second problem with the edit I reverted is even bigger. You changed a (supported) generalisation into a specific statement about Nelson. That changed the meaning, putting far more emphasis on Nelson (which in itself could be a problem) and orphaning the statements about Behe and Johnson from their proper context. The change you made broke the structure of the paragraph. Which is a problem. Not only was your rationale incorrect, your action also degraded the quality of the writing and reduced the accuracy of the section. Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My intent was to make the article MORE clear by removing the ambiguity (use of "some") without references. Help rewrite those sentences then so they do not use weasel words. Surely if there is need for "some" then the article can be better clarified by specifying exactly "who" the "some" are. Mark Renier (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also important to note that your response to being reverted was far from optimal. Try using the talk page after the first editor reverts you. Don't wait until the third person does. If someone disagrees with your edit, repeating the same rationale over and over isn't going to make them suddenly see the light. Make your argument. Respond to what others said - if you didn't understand what I had to say, you could have asked. And seriously - "you guys are clearly camping on this page"? Accusing people of misdeeds isn't a good way to start a conversation. Not to mention that it's a rather weak argument - there are 1141 people with this page on their watch list. No one is conspiring against you - it's just one of the better-watched pages in Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you are probably right about it being a better-watched page. I prefer to edit the articles and not the talk pages. Almost every time I have to come to the talk page it is because of favoritism of the subject, not the article. Making five edits of the style that I do on other pages and having ALL of them reverted is strong evidence this article is no different. I DID attribute my edits with WP:WEASEL but not words to watch: these are Wikipedia guidelines that state my case. I would ask, why do these standards NOT make my case? Please help make some edits and remove the ambiguities of "some". Mark Renier (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are two generic statements, one of them is a weasel problem and one of them is not:

Some people believe that snow white is based on a true story.
Some people, such as Fred Nottingham, believe that Snow White is based on a true story. Other believers exist as well, including the head of the Snow White was Real!™ foundation, Barney Addelson.