Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ජපස (talk | contribs) at 00:11, 11 March 2005 (→Treating evolution as a "fact"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tools

A to Z... Misplaced Pages:A to Z... CitationStyleMAJOR... CitationStyleMinor... Policies ... Village_pump ... Power structure ... Sysops ... DelLog ... Surveys ... VanIP ... # ... RfC ... Notices

/Envelope ... /DevelopmentPage ... /=Marker= ... /History ... /Welcome ... /tempMin

1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8...

A... B...

Topical index ... Utilities ... Edit controls ... Tags ... TeX_markup ... Public domain images ... Math symbols Wikipedians by religion

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ... Andrew White, Evolution of Evolution ... History of ideas

Archives of this TalkPage

• Archive001 Including archived conversations with Mr. Monk, awaiting Mr. Monk's copy to wherever he would like to memorialize the conversations.

Archive?

Your user talk page takes up 132 Kb at the moment. Goodness, folks need to scroll down for miles before they can find anything ;-)

So hmm, how about archiving your User Talk?

Here's how:

• create a new page User_talk:Rednblu/archive1
• Cut and paste everything to there (excepting perhaps the very most recent texts)
• Leave a link to it here, so people can find it back.

have a nice day! Kim Bruning 00:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, hmm, I don't think anyone could reasonably object if you archive the archive at a page called "archive" ;-) It's polite to modem users and folks with ancient cranky old browsers to keep pages small-ish. It also tidies closed topics off of your talk page, so that it's easier to figure out what you still need to attend to. Since the archive is there, you can always look up old stuff again if you need to. Kim Bruning 01:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)\

Ok. Good idea--since you suggested it. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 01:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

link you will need. 63.231.25.181 19:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'hero'

you are too kind :o) I used to enjoy the creative phase on Human. I think it will take another boost, but it is not too far from FA-hood now... regards, dab 14:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Creation and Hawstom

Red, is what you propose even possible with the software? Can we control access by user? Or are you talking about a personally monitored situation? Tom - Talk 21:04, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea at first, but this method of working has been left impossible by design as well as by policy. There must be other ways to work on this! :-) Kim Bruning 21:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am thinking only of a "manual" system where you come to any party's aid. That is what you do anyway. :) But in this case, I would like to make it explicit--if we need it. As User:Mpolo suggests on the Talk:Creation according to Genesis page, that /temp subpage development worked on Shroud of Turin without any formal administrative structure. But we may need some formal administrative structure in this particular situation. Does that make sense? :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, you are very kind, and I will hopefully be available when assistance is needed. Tom - Talk 23:33, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Tom and Kim. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What you intend to have is a violation of wikipedia's open editing policy. If you want a temporary editing space for your proposal put it on your user space. CheeseDreams 22:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Backroom alliances

You are not meant to make these CheeseDreams 00:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many of us are interested in creating NPOV articles in Misplaced Pages. Care to join us.? :)) You can be part of the alliances if you would like. ::)) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, Misplaced Pages is based on open editing, not back room creations. CheeseDreams 22:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just to be sure, I'm not part of any backroom alliances. I feel that everyone should cooperate on wikipedia. That's a frontroom alliance I think. ;-) Kim Bruning 02:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A frontroom alliance would be one which discusses things on visible article talk pages not on user talk pages. CheeseDreams 22:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. That is a frontroom alliance. Yes. :) That is why we are all supposed to see all of these Talk Pages!  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 05:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about discussing on the article talk page then, that's even more front room ;-) Kim Bruning 19:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Correct. Absolutely. But there are several system flaws in using TalkPages:

1. There is no alert to the specific user to whom the message is directed.
2. There is no way, other than tedious manual duplication, for cross-posting, such as commenting in the article talk page and simultaneously sending an alert to a particular user.

Yes there is. a) watch the page

b) send them a note on their talk page going "ive added a comment for you", if it is really important. CheeseDreams 22:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would you think that a simple posting to the article page in this case would have achieved the result of getting the appropriate comment of the two Sysops that I wanted involved in this? :)) Isn't there a more important underlying issue that we should be discussing?  ;)) ---Rednblu | Talk 19:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess it might have avoided hard feelings on CheeseDreams's part and achieved the same result if you had asked me to please come take a look at such and such section on the talk page. I would gladly have popped on over. Tom - Talk 22:44, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Sure. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, well. Live and learn. I never would have got it right myself. Tom - Talk 22:58, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Nah, just be sure you don't forget to explain on the article talk page that you did ask. Actually, if you just ask politely on the talk page, everyone will often be quite willing to let you do stuff out of politeness, and wait 'till you're done. Especially if you do it on a subpage for a while. :-) Have fun eh? Kim Bruning 20:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right-oh. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Prometheus image

I fixed its PD status and gave it a good caption, though I didn't upload it. Say, I'd be part of your back-room cabal any day. --Wetman 18:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Count me in also. I guess the first thing is to post all communications here in the front parlor to make sure that no one is left out!  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 19:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, concerning the Adam sculpture. PD on 3D is a tricky question. Angle and lighting make the image not purely documentary. Do we have to lose it? (Two questions: A. Is this sculpture just the very least bit comic? B. Is there anything about current action movies that could be termed Rococo?)

• I was hoping that you had taken the photograph.  :) Anyway that is a great photograph, is it not? A. Comic? Yes. Wonderful storytelling. I would not say that we have to lose it. I am still looking for the source. :) B. Rococo action movies? How about that wonderful cartoon action movie -- Les Triplettes de Belleville? That was Rococo and wonderful, in my book. What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 05:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not even a "super thin mint" is acceptable to the "no announcements" perspective?

Thanks for offering your opinion.

I've posted a reply. --DV 09:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your memory

Your memory is more likely to be accurate than my comparison of edit histories. Would you be able to find the text you recently added so that we can fix the edit conflict (and consequent duplication of half the page) on Talk:Creation vs. evolution debate ? CheeseDreams 20:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You've done it again!!!!

And please don't archive current discussions, I want to reply to some of the texts. CheeseDreams 21:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok. it's dealt with now. CheeseDreams

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Misplaced Pages's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to ] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to ] all my contributions to any ], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Just a hello

Hey there, I just happened to flip to your user page after having scrolled through the other responses on Creation vs. evolution debate, and wanted to let you know that I found the information on Robert Ingersoll informative. I also appreciated your appreciation for Sanger. Her contraception movement really hit its stride around the 1920's I guess, and I always found it interesting because my great aunt would have been one of the young women who might have heard what she had to say. She was a country girl living on a farm; they weren't poor, but they weren't well-off either. Anyway, my point is that I remember once a few years ago, just a couple of years before she died, her mentioning the sort of birth control they used: a length of silk strategically placed. She wasn't one to talk much about these sorts of personal things, but I found it interesting that it at least was well-known enough to be the contraceptive choice of her day, at least in rural Texas. Katefan0 15:06, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

You make scientists look bad

And just for the record, maybe you can find the source for this: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." Bensaccount 22:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My subsequent attempt to educate you

Here is a tutorial created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.].

Thanks for restoring the Lettvin quotation...

...in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology article. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New name for Tom

Thanks, Red. Actually I am not changing my name. My account will still be User:Hawstom, but I am using the User and talk page Tom. I would go ahead and use the account Tom, which is what I have wanted to do for a long time, but I or somebody else already registered it and I can't remember the password (or never knew it). But I finally decided that since there are no contributions for User:Tom, I would be safe to do a little friendly take-over of the space. What I need to be sure to do is make it clear at the top of the Tom pages that "These pages are owned and operated by User:Hawstom. User:Tom has no contributions."

You can't do that. -- Tim Starling 07:12, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Funny way to put it, but I guess he means "that is generally frowned at around here."  :-) Tom H. 03:04, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Unverified image

Thanks for uploading Image:RobertIngersoll.gif. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Duk 09:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since the image has a cleanup tag, you might want to look at File:RobertIngersoll.jpg for a cleaned-up version Ojw 20:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wow! You guys are great! I'm not sure how I can help. I uploaded the original from the atheism site. I rather liked the blue sponge effect. But I like Mr. Ojw's clean-up better! The original photograph--before the blue sponging--appears to be the same pose as in the photograph at Robert Ingersoll. That is all I know--except for the gorgeous transcripts of Ingersoll's speeches! How can I help? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Build the web -- it's here in all it's carefully-analysed wikiness... Ojw 00:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creationism NPOV tag

I'm not clear to what threshold of edit-explaining you're suggesting operating, here. My reversion, explained in the edit summary, of a completely unexplained deletion, should also have been discussed on the talk page; whereas your reversion of that reversion, didn't need any explanation, beyond noting the lack of said talk-page comment...? Alai 05:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did you find any particular NPOV violations in the Creationism page? ---Rednblu | Talk 05:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't clear to me one way on the other; hence I felt Ungtss's silent removal of it was suspicious, to say the least. Alai 06:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Human

Hi Rednblu, thanks for your message. I've replied at Talk:Human. SlimVirgin 21:06, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Evolution not a "fact"?

Hi Rednblu,

You have made some interesting claims, but I think you should be a little more careful with them:

But the evolutionists, those who believe that evolution is fact, are deluding themselves by confusing fact with cause for the fact.

That is, just because most scientists find evolution a crucial piece in their understanding of the world does not make evolution a fact.

That standard of finding would find that creationism was fact at least until about 1850. Surely scientific fact is different from majority vote.\

This is a view of subjective reality which fails the test of universality. Either things were facts for all time or they were fiction. Just because people think things are facts do not make them facts. There exists substantive facts that science accepts because empiricism is assumed true. If empiricism is wrong, then all of science is wrong. In this way science acts as a religion.

However, it is not incorrect to say that "evolution is a fact". This is because "fact" in the scientific sense is defined to be that which is empirically observed. "The grass is green" is a fact. It isn't a cause for the fact. It is a description of the observation of the grass. Likewise "evolution accounts for the diversity and origin of lifeforms on this planet" is a fact because it is empirically observed. Evolution itself is observed.

To put it another way, there are those that believe in Aristotlean accidents and substance. The "substance" would be the fact and the accident would be the observations (or, in your case, vice versa). This is incompatible with Ockham's Razor because either one of these two things are unobservable and so either you believe everything is substance or accident.

Generally speaking, if you are a religious scientist, you believe it is all accident. If you are a philosophical naturalist you believe it is all substance. Either way the only "fact" is that which is observed and evolution, beind observed is either accident or substance and therefore fact in the empirical scientific sense.

Further, you go on to criticize a perceived "religious" bent for those who claim evolution to be a fact. This is also incorrect. The religious bent of scientism of the 19th century did indeed attempt to recast the world in terms of a religion based on science. However, this movement is for the most part dead. There is a consensus in the scientific community today that there are empirical facts and observations and descriptions of said things -- and nothing more. This is not a religious sentiment because the religious conceit relies on the existence of something more by definition. In other words, the definition of religion is one that relies on a truth which is necessarily "extra-scientific" in that it isn't based on empiricism. There is no way for science to evaluate a religious claim that is based extra-scientifically because the reality is the religious conceit can attack the very foundations of empiricism.

I think you conflate religion and the "fact" of evolution because of the certainty seemingly portrayed by the use of the term "fact". However, there is no such thing as "certainty" in the inductive sciences. All that can be said is that there is such a thing as empirical observation. Whether this observation indicates anything substantive (or accidental) cannot be determined by science. Solipsism is always a resort that cannot be disproven, nor can it be eliminated via Ockham's Razor because of the so-called "insanity" paradox (that being an insane person can invent a system that is internally rational to him or her, but is divorced from reality. Therefore there is no reason to assume that a rational system that is developed, no matter how simple, is necessarily correct.) When scientists talk about a "fact", they are talking about an empirically observed phenomenon. Evolution is an empirically observed phenomenon in that it is mechanistically, case-by-case, and phenomenologically observed. If you object to it being called a fact, then there can be no facts per se in science. This is okay for you to do, but it isn't the definition of "fact" used in the empirical world.

To take another example, it would be impossible to call "gravity" a fact. One could point to any observation and claim that gravity is the "cause" for the fact rather than the fact itself. However, this isn't the way physicists refer to gravity at all. Rather, gravity is the collection of observations and models that describe said observations that allow for physical predictions. Gravity is a "fact" because it is observed. Likewise with evolution.

Joshuaschroeder 23:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Observed instances of speciation

I would refer you to this page where many instances of speciation (that is reproductive isolation) are recounted. My favorite one is a species of Lab Rat Worm that evolved to the point where it could no longer reproduce with other Lab Rat worms which were the same species 20 years previous. Of course, most "serious" creationists recognize that speciation (and so-called "microevolution") occurs, what they object to is long-term and large scale evolution (so-called "macroevolution"). The problem here is that there is substantively nothing different between macroevolution and microevolution except for the scales involved. Thus, to claim that evolution is not a fact is really a claim that macroevolution is not a fact, which is a basic denial of universality once again.

To extend the analogy of gravity further, it would be like someone accepting the Eötvös experiment you listed on my talkpage as evidence for "microgravity", but rejecting "gravity" (or "macrogravity", if you will) as the reason for orbits because they disbelieve those scales (both in time and space). One would then easily be able to argue against gravity's "fact" in the same way you argue on your Userpage. Of course, as I described above, this is fundamentally opposed to the conceit of science as it stands, so is left to be a wholly extra-scientific objection. What's left is the point that if gravity exists and is a fact then evolution must also exit and be a fact by direct analogy.

Joshuaschroeder 18:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Universality vs. uniformitarianism

In actual point of fact, I am referring to the universality of physical laws as a generalized extension of uniformitarianism. The linked wikipedia article doesn't due justice to true universality, it's on my to-do list.

If physics is different in the past than it is today then it is truly the case that there can be no consistent model for science at all. However, we can and do test this assumption in a variety of ways -- the most basic of which is by looking into space and seeing that physics works the same way when the universe was younger than it is today.

To claim it is difficult to see why physical processes that occured in the past are the same as physical processes that occur today is tantamount to saying that it is impossible to do science with any predictive sense. Creationists would therefore be hardpressed to define anything as a "fact" at all, except for those "facts" they took on faith. This is a worldview that cannot be debunked by any scientific explanation, but it isn't the type of argument leveled by creationists. Rather, it is claimed ultimately by creationists that the explanations provided by science are themselves inherently incorrect for reasons related to selective incredulity, triumphalist assurance, and poisoning the well.

So, to come back to the analogy, why should the creationist believe that gravity existed before they were born? If there is no universality of physical laws to imply that observed mechanisms today acting in the past account for the state of the universe today, what replaces this? How can such a replacement be used to define "fact" independent of empiricism?

In other words, how can we say it is wrong to call evolution a "fact" if there exists no "facts" at all?

Joshuaschroeder 22:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Treating evolution as a "fact"

Is there anything wrong with you and me treating evolution as a "fact"? Nope--as long as you and I are willing to adjust our certain "facts" to conform to the new findings of empirical observations. 8)) But it is best that you and I not talk about "evolution as fact" to the creationists--because they have enough intelligence to distinguish between "facts" and the "conclusions" derived from the "facts." Our difficult job is to get the creationists to deal with reality. And using the phrase "evolution is fact" clutters the intellectual landscape by being wrong, wrong, wrong. The creationists are willing to deal with the "facts," and the "facts" are exactly what would be admissible in any court of law--the testimonial accounts of what happened. Is a fossil or a genome a testimonial account of what happened? Yes. A fossil or a genome would be "facts"--but neither a fossil nor a genome is evolution. Evolution is the "cause" for the "facts."

I disagree heartily that the statement "evolution is fact" is "wrong wrong wrong". It isn't wrong, it's just model-dependent just like any other "fact" you come across.

I need to keep refering back to gravity because I think to be consistent you would have to conclude that the statement "gravity is a fact" would also have to be "wrong wrong wrong" in your formulation of "fact" as above. If you can find me a creationist who will agree that by the criteria for claiming that evolution is not a "fact", gravity is also not a "fact", then I will concede the point. But creationists are fond of selectively culling certain parts of science they find controversial when real "criticism" is leveled against science in general not on, for example, evolution in particular.

If creationists would just accept that these arguments that you outline are applicable to any scientific model be it atomic physics, chemical principles, gravity, electromagnetism, physiology, etc. then they would at least be honest. Right now they (and somehow have convinced you to as well) tread on shaky groud of selectively choosing certain criteria for parts of science and other criteria for other parts of science.

To wit, would the theory of gravity stand up to a cross-examination in a court room? Did OJ Simpson make an effective defense that DNA-evidence has "reasonable doubt"? A court room should not (and cannot) be the arbiter of scientific fact -- it is not an arbiter of fact at all but rather of "opinion" (in the eyes of the law, of course). Science, however, uses empiricism to define fact and if you object to "fact" per se being used in this context you should also object to fact being used in science at all -- with regards to any model, theory, or explanation of phenomenon.

In other words, the kinetic theory of gases isn't a fact, the atmoic theory isn't a fact, energy conservation isn't a fact, and the laws of thermodynamics are not facts. These are all, rather "conclusions" drawn from facts, if I understand what you are proposing.

Joshuaschroeder 01:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evolution vs. gravity vs. fact

It seems to me that gravity would be quite easy to introduce as "fact" into a courtroom. For example, you might ask me to testify what I had seen in the Torsion bar experiment.

Ah, but here you see the problem. While the Torsion bar illustrates an expected effect due to gravity, gravity is the cause of this fact, not the fact itself. That's why "gravity" per se cannot be a fact in your formulation.

What could I introduce as "fact" about evolution? You could get my friend to testify to what he has seen in the progressive mutations of skin cells in creating a cancer colony--together with progressive "genomes" of the mutating "species." The trouble with that series of "facts" is that there is no indication of increasing capability.

Well, so we understand that mutation, speciation, and variation exist.

Now you have brought up increasing capability. But that's not a criteria for evolution. It's a criteria that creationists claim is demanded by evolution, but they haven't been able to even define what "capability" (or its derivatives of specified complexity, genetic information, etc.) is let alone how to tell whether it is increasing due to any process, evolution or not. The only thing that evolution describes the development of life as it proceeds along the lines of natural selection of mutations.

Similarly, gravity describes energy density as the source term for the curvature of space. One might claim that long range or long term effects of this are ultimately inadmissable to a courtroom, thus the "fact" of gravity would be in contention just as much as evolution.

What I mean by "evolution" is the 5 million year process by which the ancestors of the chimpanzees would speciate into the three different species--modern chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans. What I mean by "evolution" is the development of increasing capability to deal with the environmental niche.

One could counter that, "What I mean by gravity is the process by which galaxies, stars, and planets are formed and evolve. What I mean by gravity is the governing force that causes the evolution of large scale structure in the universe." This is seemingly just as controversial as the above, or do you disagree?

I could introduce lots of "facts" that make "evolution" a plausible "cause" for the "facts." But I could not introduce evolution as a "fact" into the courtroom--because what every available witness has seen is "facts" that strongly indicate that humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees; no one has seen it happen.

But likewise, no one has personally witnessed the birth of a star, the formation of a galaxy, or the curvature of space. Does this mean that no one has seen gravity? They can look at your torsion bar experiment all day long, but this is merely a case of "microgravity" (ala "microevolution"). We would need to reformulate all of science along the lines of claiming that only microprosses are facts and their descriptions should be kept as "possible" causes. This is fine, but it is not the way scientists talk about science and it is also not the way creationists talk about science they think is non-controversial.

All I'm saying is that in order to be consistent with this, we'd have to throw out an entire vocabulary and syntax that is used to describe scientific empiricism simply because there seems to be controversy over the denotations of specific words. Does this make sense?

However, I argue at this stage, that just because the atomic bomb was not a "fact" when Einstein told Roosevelt about it does not lessen the impact; the "facts" strongly indicated that there was a tremendous atomic energy "cause" for the "facts" from Enrico Fermi's experiments. And the real question is "Where will you place your bets?"

I understand that you think the emphasis is incorrectly placed when scientists refer to framework arguments as facts, but I fail to see what harm it does since there isn't a consistent alternative being offered (except, if you will accept my idea that facts don't exist at all and everything is up to interpretation).

Joshuaschroeder 00:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)