| Revision as of 00:10, 11 April 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,161 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Teleological argument/Archive 4) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:11, 11 April 2014 edit undoAndrew Lancaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers40,203 edits →Lead citationsNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| As noted in my , the claimed term "argument from intelligent design" is not supported by the cited source, , which explicitly refers to the current ''"intellectual and political aspirations of so-called intelligent-design theorists. Their confidence in a particular form of the design argument is so strong that they believe it should be taught in high school science classes as a check on the pretensions of evolutionary theory."'' <br>This is clearly the DI's ID, and it's a good source for the point that ID is a particular form of the design argument, not the generic argument. It's also a source for the generic term "design argument" which should really be bolded in our lead alongside teleological argument and argument from design.<br>It's plausible that some sources use "argument from intelligent design" to refer to the generic argument, but a good citation is needed giving evidence that exactly that phrase has significant usage. . . . . ], ] 15:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC) | As noted in my , the claimed term "argument from intelligent design" is not supported by the cited source, , which explicitly refers to the current ''"intellectual and political aspirations of so-called intelligent-design theorists. Their confidence in a particular form of the design argument is so strong that they believe it should be taught in high school science classes as a check on the pretensions of evolutionary theory."'' <br>This is clearly the DI's ID, and it's a good source for the point that ID is a particular form of the design argument, not the generic argument. It's also a source for the generic term "design argument" which should really be bolded in our lead alongside teleological argument and argument from design.<br>It's plausible that some sources use "argument from intelligent design" to refer to the generic argument, but a good citation is needed giving evidence that exactly that phrase has significant usage. . . . . ], ] 15:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::Dave, as already mentioned in my edit comments here, and on the talk page at Intelligent Design (in the discussion which inspired you to come here and start tagging), you wrote the current lead more than anyone, and so you should know that no one is claiming that the source you mention is the source for those specific words. (I have not checked but probably you inserted that source.) Furthermore this talk page's archives show you recently stating in clear terms that you agree this wording is sourceable. The source is easy to copy and paste if it is needed. I can forgive you for forgetting that, but (a) I find it silly that you did this as a way to make a point about a discussion on another article (which you then announced there). And (b) I find it even sillier that I already explained the history of this wording and sourcing and you are playing dumb and pretending you do not know the answer to your pointy point. Great to see that you also brought your human bot edit warrior over to this article with you. Anyway, there is nothing stopping anyone putting the source in, so putting in a tag instead is plain dumb, but the question I already raised, as you know, is whether we need to put a footnote on every word choice. I assume you are saying "yes" but on what possible grounds? The whole structure of this discussion makes it sound like we are only allowed to use exact words from sources, but that would be ]. On WP, demands like this are normally considered a classic sign of "]". It would be easy to ruin any article if every unsourced word could be tagged.--] (]) 07:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:11, 11 April 2014
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Teleological argument article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives (index) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Lead issues
Lead too long
I agree that the lead is too long. It seems to deal with matters that are far too detailed for a lead. I propose that all the wording from "Since the 1960s ..." is moved to the article body.Myrvin (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with this proposed shortening, since most if not all of the content is dealt with in more detail in the body text there probably isn't much to move there. . . dave souza, talk 15:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Lead citations
Also, the wording "more generally of some kind of intelligent agent of creation, based upon proposed empirical evidence of human-like design or purpose in nature" seems odd. The words "empirical evidence" do not appear on p. 261 of the cited source. On a minor point, the words "some kind of" seem unnecessary. We need a better source for this assertion. Myrvin (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
How about this from the OED: "argument from design n. Theol. an argument for the existence of an intelligent creator (usually identified as God) based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world" Myrvin (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- While I don't have a secondary source immediately to hand commenting on this point, Paley's Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity implies that the argument can be used to show the attributes of Mr. Deity as well as being an argument for His existence. . dave souza, talk 15:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
As noted in my edit summary, the claimed term "argument from intelligent design" is not supported by the cited source, page 261, which explicitly refers to the current "intellectual and political aspirations of so-called intelligent-design theorists. Their confidence in a particular form of the design argument is so strong that they believe it should be taught in high school science classes as a check on the pretensions of evolutionary theory."
This is clearly the DI's ID, and it's a good source for the point that ID is a particular form of the design argument, not the generic argument. It's also a source for the generic term "design argument" which should really be bolded in our lead alongside teleological argument and argument from design.
It's plausible that some sources use "argument from intelligent design" to refer to the generic argument, but a good citation is needed giving evidence that exactly that phrase has significant usage. . . . . dave souza, talk 15:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Dave, as already mentioned in my edit comments here, and on the talk page at Intelligent Design (in the discussion which inspired you to come here and start tagging), you wrote the current lead more than anyone, and so you should know that no one is claiming that the source you mention is the source for those specific words. (I have not checked but probably you inserted that source.) Furthermore this talk page's archives show you recently stating in clear terms that you agree this wording is sourceable. The source is easy to copy and paste if it is needed. I can forgive you for forgetting that, but (a) I find it silly that you did this as a way to make a point about a discussion on another article (which you then announced there). And (b) I find it even sillier that I already explained the history of this wording and sourcing and you are playing dumb and pretending you do not know the answer to your pointy point. Great to see that you also brought your human bot edit warrior over to this article with you. Anyway, there is nothing stopping anyone putting the source in, so putting in a tag instead is plain dumb, but the question I already raised, as you know, is whether we need to put a footnote on every word choice. I assume you are saying "yes" but on what possible grounds? The whole structure of this discussion makes it sound like we are only allowed to use exact words from sources, but that would be WP:COPYVIO. On WP, demands like this are normally considered a classic sign of "tendentiousness". It would be easy to ruin any article if every unsourced word could be tagged.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- Start-Class metaphysics articles
- High-importance metaphysics articles
- Metaphysics task force articles
- Start-Class logic articles
- High-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- Start-Class philosophy of religion articles
- High-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles