Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:30, 23 December 2006

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

Barnstar for continued diligence

		The Original Barnstar
		I think you deserve another barnstar for your continued diligence. Bubba73 (talk), 01:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Encouragement

I have noticed that some people have been rude to you recently, and I'm sorry to see that. Whether you're right or wrong, there's no excuse for incivility. Keep your chin up! Sarah crane 15:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions regarding space/time in such detail. Tom Cod 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Question on Big Bang revert you made

You recently reverted two quotes that I added to the Big Bang article. They were:

• Historian of science Frederic B. Burnham said the discovery made the idea of a creator "a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last hundred years." (David Briggs, "Science, Religion, Are Discovering Commonality in Big Bang Theory," Los Angeles Times, 2 May 1992, pp. B6-B7.)
• Later, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge remarked that his colleagues were rushing off the join "the first Church of Christ of the Big Bang." (Stephen Strauss, "An Innocent’s Guide to the Big Bang Theory: Fingerprint in Space Left by the Universe as a Baby Still Has Doubters Hurling Stones," The Globe and Mail (Toronto), 25 April 1992, p. 1.)

I wasn't clear from your edit summary why you deleted the material and you didn't elaborate on the article's talk page. I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on the matter with me when you have the opportunity.

Both quotes are sourced; both are from legitimate authorities with knowledge of the article's topic (a historian of science and an astronomer); and both are directly related to the Big Bang, specifically to the ways in which the theory interacts with religious or spiritual views. The origin of the universe does have implications for religion, the lack thereof, and philosophy; the quotes in question were included in the section of the article which deals with those possible implications.

With appreciation, Jacob1207 00:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I understand your position now, but I think the two quotes would help the article.

The whole purpose of that section of the article is to raise possible implications that the Big Bang theory could have if it is true. Pointing out that we are even more confident in the theory's validity now than in the past would, if anything, make mentioning the theory's implications even more important. The two quotes in question do precisely that, and come from a scientific background, not a philosophical or theological one. Taken together, the gist of the two quotes amounts to the claim that some astronomers were more willing to consider a theistic or deistic interpretation of the universe once they had some good evidence that the universe in fact had a beginning. I think that is important information, especially since many might find it counter intuitive.

As for the section on religious and philosophical implications being too long, it currently amounts to 647 words, or about 11.4% of the 5660 word article (calculated quickly using MS Word, doesn't include references, links, or photo captions). Adding the 55 words (not including references) back would increase the size of that section by 8.5% and the article by just under 1%. I share your desire to not let articles get bloated or suffer from topic creep, but this material deals directly with the Big Bang and how some scientists view it and I think it more than justifies inclusion.

Your thoughts?

Jacob1207 23:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the disagreement between us remains and I don't understand your rationale for leaving the material out. Do you agree with the claim that the Big Bang has philosophical and religious implications? If so, do you agree that insofar as they are significant, such implications should be mentioned in the article in an appropriate manner?

I think that the material is appropriate, even if we are more confident (indeed, virtually certain) in the validity of the Big Bang now than we were at the time the quotes were generated. Consider the two quotes:

Historian of science Frederic B. Burnham said the discovery made the idea of a creator "a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last hundred years."

Well, if a lot of evidence for the Big Bang makes the idea of a creator respectable, wouldn't a whole ton of evidence make the idea even more respectable? From what you've told me, I don't see how the comment is out-of-date.

Later, astronomer and Big Bang critic Geoffrey Burbidge remarked that his colleagues were rushing off the join "the first Church of Christ of the Big Bang."

You're right, we should indicate where Burbidge is coming from and call him a BB critic or denier, whichever you prefer. His fringe theories may color his remark, but he's basically making an observation: that his fellow astronomers are more willing to entertain a theistic or deistic interpretation of the universe now that they think they have good evidence for the BB. Sure, he doesn't think it happened, but he's saying that some who do think it happened think that it has certain religious or philosophical implications. Isn't that relevant to the section?

I don't understand your position that the materials isn't relevant, unless you think that, since the Big Bang is a science matter, only science material should be included in the article.

Jacob1207 09:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand if you don't think the Big Bang can count as evidence for a creator. However, there are notable people who disagree. The two gentlemen whose quotes I want included demonstrate that there are those who think that evidence of a beginning to the universe makes it possible to consider whether or not there is a created because, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe ... neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time. pp. 140-141. See ).

That's where Burnham gets off with his claim. If the universe is eternal, it doesn't have a creator and thus it's not respectable to think that there was a creator. But if the universe had a beginning, it is possible that it has a creator--and a person who believes in something that is possible is more respectable than someone who believes in an impossibility. The belief that there was a creator is laughable in an eternal universe, but it is at least relatively more respectable in a universe of finite duration. Thus, the more likely it is that the universe is not eternal, the more respectable it would be to consider the possibility of a creator.

Regarding the Burnham quote, I don't understand the grounds on which you declare him to be biased, unless you rule out the idea of a creator a priori. That is, of course, justified as part of the scientific endeavor, but not in philosophy. I ask that you please elaborate on your claim that he is biased. But not that even if he is biased, the statement is still his opinion and is thus worth including in a list of various opinions on the philosophical and theological implications of the Big Bang, provided that they're not fringe positions. And I don't think that this is a fringe position. In addition to the two quotes in question and the Hawking comment, please consider the following.

Astronomer Allan Sandage proposed that the Big Bang is best understood as "a miracle" triggered by some kind of transcendent power. Arthur Milne concluded a mathematical treatise on relativity with "As to the first cause of the Universe ... that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him." (E.A. Milne, Modern Cosmology and the Christian Idea of God (Oxford: Clarendon, 1952), quoted by Jastrow, p. 102) John Maddox, a humanist and physicist, wrote an essay in Nature called "Down with the Big Bang" in which he said the Big Bang was "philosophically unacceptable" and that he believes theological creationists find "ample justification" for their creationist creed in it. Consider also what Christopher Isham has said.

Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory. (Christopher Isham. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne (Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1988), p. 378.)

My point is not that the Big Bang proves that there is a creator. My point is that a number of notable scientists are on the record with views that evidence that the universe began--which is what the Big Bang provides--can be used to support the cosmological argument for the existence of a creator. I don't want to say that it proves a creator or even that the case which can be made is compelling or that there aren't rebuttals to it. All I want to do is have the article indicate what various scientists have said on the matter. I'm not dead set on those two particular quotes, perhaps some of the other stuff I have mentioned would be more beneficial to the article.

I think it comes down to these three questions: Do you agree that quite a few notable people are on the record stating that the Big Bang is useful in the cosmological argument? If so, doesn't this have philosophical and religious implications? If so, do you agree that this fact should be mentioned in the article? I would answer all three questions in the affirmative and it seems to me that such a response to the first two would require a yes to the third, barring some drawback that I don't see. Thus my confusion with what I perceive to be your position.

With appreciation,

Jacob1207 02:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see now the new discussion over forking the article. I have added my comments on it's talk page in favor of doing so and leaving about a paragraph and a "See main article" link in the Big Bang article proper. If that happens, the material in question between us will find a natural home there. If for some reason a new article isn't spun off, then it seems to me that the material should either be allowed in the Big Bang article or declared unencyclopedic. But it looks like that discussion won't need to take place since several others have opined in favor of creating a new article. Jacob1207 18:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy

You didn't try very hard to find out if there's an active POV dispute, you know. We're in the middle of a gradual attempt to pull it up to standards, and to remove some insidious Creationist POV. Adam Cuerden 13:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right. I apologise: I misunderstood. Isn't that the same tag, though, just by way of a redirect? Adam Cuerden 13:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. I guess I could make a tag for this purpose saying that POV issues have been found, and here are ongoing attempts to fix it, but I'm not sure it would be generally useful. Anyway, I already made a couple new tags for the article (the trim one, FixPOV, and I think another.) Adam Cuerden 14:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we need to warn readers about the problems, or are we far enough along in the revision that it's relatively safe? Adam Cuerden 14:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's leave it, then! Adam Cuerden 15:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Subtlety

I think you have the correct answer. Dr. Submillimeter 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My biography does not mention that I worked at the University of Arizona for three years or that I worked with people from the University of Arizona in the years before I moved to Arizona. I am also having fun making oblique statements that can only be understood in the proper context by the right person. (Leave an oblique message if you understand.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Tommysun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.
• Tommysun and Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are placed on probation. They may be banned from any article or subject area which they disrupt by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. *Elerner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work.
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wolf effect

Unfortunately, I have no experience with the Wolf effect, so I cannot provide any useful assistance. (Extragalactic astronomers do not spend much time studying alternative redshift theories.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A terrible shame that you don't. -Ionized 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Halton Arp

Iantresman has moved on to Halton Arp. Please watch his actions carefully. Dr. Submillimeter 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

William G. Tifft proposal

Hello ScienceApologist. The discussion at Talk:William G. Tifft is getting heated. Would you consider voluntarily withdrawing from editing this article for a week, if User:Iantresman does the same? Then the rest of the participants would try to get a Talk consensus and revise the article, taking our pick from all the submitted (and sometimes reverted) material. Ian told me he would go along with this if you do. EdJohnston 19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive. Asmodeus is also placed on probation indefinitely and is cautioned to be courteous to other users. He may be banned from any article, talk page, or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing or incivility. All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern. Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher are banned indefinitely. FeloniousMonk is counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way. ScienceApologist is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who may edit their own article or advance original research. Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Spiritual science

Your recent edit to Spiritual science (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 18:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote mine

My suspicion is that the Introduction to evolution article will draw more attention eventually than the evolution article, so this might be valuable as well. Let them soil the baby article, not the real article.--Filll 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific vs. naturalistic vs. nonsupernatural

I put a note on the controversy article talk page about this. I do not feel that strongly to be honest, just wanted to explain my reasoning.--Filll 15:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Abusing wiki-projects...

I'm not sure what you mean by that? I see quite a few projects setup with "noticeboards" like the one on WP:PARA. ---J.S 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tesla effect was called parascience in the debate and the only references to it that I found on the net were new-age type websites. I added the article to the list in good faith. ---J.S 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of the article until I saw it under review. I added it to the Paranormal AFD board because I felt that if the article were to be kept (or eventually recreated) it would be included in the project.

I'm not going to debate the article with you outside of AFD or the article's talk page. This discussion is about the AFD noticeboard on the paranormal project. Since the concept is (or seems to be) parascience it falls under the umbrella, despite it's current bad shape. ---J.S 01:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Good point. Sometimes you get hung up on picking one or the other, when in fact the best language is far simpler. Guettarda 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD's are not a vote.

Just so you know, adding tally boxes to an AfD is not allowed. See WP:AFD. Please don't do it again. Mister.Manticore 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, check WP:AFD. Mister.Manticore 03:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your vote

Rageross's question provided no context or background and merely asked if I thought there was a difference between NPOV and SPOV. I am not an apologist for cranks or kooks and have little tolerance for junk science. You may wish to take a look at the editing I did at one point on glyphosate (not sure if the edits are at that title, or at Roundup or Monsanto or some other article - it was a couple years ago) but I did considerable reading (including contacting Monsanto for clarification on some points) to clear up the purported link between glyphosate and cancer. I read through the entire text of the study that made the claim and the three rebuttals that Monsanto supplied and concluded that the claim of a cancer link was without scientific basis both on the merits of the study and its methodology and response of the scientific community at large.

I believe in the scientific method, the importance of reproducibility of results, and the importance to Misplaced Pages of reflecting mainstream scientific thought on scientific subjects, along with alternate theories held by a significant minority of credible scientists. My response to Rageross (whose editing background I did not review before responding) was intended to address the misapplication of science to matters of faith or conscience, a problem we encounter occasionally in those subject areas. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom voting

So have you actually supported anyone based on their answer to the SPOV question? Not criticizing you, but I'm trying to figure out what sort of answer you want out of the candidates to get your support, and from what I've read they all seem to be opposes.

Somewhat idly curious,

--tjstrf talk 13:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on group draft needed (William G. Tifft)

Hello ScienceApologist. Dr. Submm has prepared a draft of two new paragraphs for the Tifft article. . These paragraphs are intended to follow what's already there in the article. I wanted to pre-check with you to see if you object to his inclusion of the Sobel article. I am thinking of asking for a change in the first two sentences of the second paragraph, which seem to suggest that Tifft is ignored and thus opening us to challenge for lack of supporting citations for his being ignored. Other than that, it would be helpful to know if you find major problems with what you see there. I'd appreciate if you would reply here on your own talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston 18:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement report

As a courtesy, I am letting you know that I have made a report concerning some issues regarding your contributions to Misplaced Pages, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement / User:ScienceApologist here --Iantresman 23:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Elaborate on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Retrocausality?

FYI, a more thorough description of why the retrocausality article is OR would be useful for the AfD; people see references in the article and google hits for the term and figure it all fits together. On a related note, the article on supercausality was created by the same person, who seems to have a point to make about some sort of quantum consciousness theory, and contains substantially the same text as the first section of retrocausality. Might want to take a look. Opabinia regalis 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You want to make a new nomination, so that the old one can be easily seen. Something like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Retrocausality (Second nomination). - 152.91.9.144 05:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to this AfD. I found it very interesting and chipped in my two cents in the discussions for both it and supercausality. Nice to make your acquaintance. Doczilla 07:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD mess

Bwithh is misrepresenting Misplaced Pages procedure, making things very difficult for no reason; you really don't even need to worry about replying to him any further. I'm sorry about the mess you've dealt with; if you have any further problems, please contact me. -- SCZenz 07:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's actually pretty straightforward. Use WP:DRV for sorting out disputed afd closures. This is not "misrepresenting Misplaced Pages procedure, making things very difficult for no reason". I'm trying to point out there's a simple route in place. I'm baffled that this straightforward solution is causing so much aggro. Bwithh 07:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's because, when the initial nomination wasn't explained, it was derailed pointlessly. Thus restarting it is the sensible thing to do. Demanding extra procedural steps to do the sensible thing does cause aggrivation; please think next time whether you're helping or hurting Misplaced Pages when you demand extra steps or add "procedural speedy keeps," Bwithh. -- SCZenz 07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being condescending Bwithh 07:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's my reply to SCZenz's welcome offer to start off on a better foot: Bwithh 07:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your ArbCom election comments

Thanks for your ArbCom election comments. I found them very illuminating, and the way some candidates answered the NPOV and SPOV question was extremely useful in revealing some of the candidate's' basic misunderstandings of NPOV and the need to give each POV due weighting depending on the subject area. Carcharoth 15:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrocausality

As per JzG's recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

About jargon

Hello ScienceApologist. You commented your opposition to my ArbCom candidacy by expressing concerns about my views about science. There is one thing I should have linked to : Misplaced Pages:Explain jargon. Thank you. -- DLL 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Good additions to WP:FRINGE. Per the remarks on the Talk page, I tweaked the phrasing a little to make it clear the peer-review criterion applies to other academic pursuits outside the sciences. Anville 16:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

The edit summary in your recent edit falls short of the civility that is expected between editors. Given that you were cautioned about civility in the pseudo-science arb-comm, you need to restrain from any name-calling of this sort. Bucketsofg 17:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)