User talk:Strobels
Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]
Welcome!
Hello, Strobels, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
'Bout time someone said hello! Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy isn't necessarily obvious, as the aim is to give due weight to majority expert opinion, and take particular care with areas such as extreme minority views such as pseudoscience as shown in the WP:NPOV/FAQ policy. Fringe guidance shows how to deal with extreme minority views fairly while showing how these views have been received by mainstream expert opinion. Always, verification is needed to show that facts, assessment and synthesis of facts come from a published reliable source and are not our own original research, whether by way of our own unpublished facts or our own interpretation of facts. It's a lot to get to grips with, so hope that helps a bit. I'll be glad to try to answer any questions you have, all the best, dave souza, talk 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dave - Sorry it took so long to get back to you. If you look at the rest of my posts, you will see that I've realized that I'm running into a dead end, in that I may be debating the validity of WP policy itself regarding POV. I do dispute the blanket categorization of IC scientists as engaging in pseudoscience. My background is in intelligence analysis, and simply labeling a divergent analytical conclusion based on observation of the same data as "pseudo" is not intellectually sound and may lead the majority to engage in self-referencing and circular reporting. Take care. Strobels (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not use talk pages such as Irreducible complexity for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. I reverted your post since it looked like a classic example of soap-boxing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Irreducible Complexity (IC)[edit]
The comment that "IC is a concept which, while based in religion and thus inherently dogmatic" is false at the most basic level. Despite what any detractors desire to mis-define IC as, it is basically defined in this way: "A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system." I will go out on a limb here and say that even a child could figure out that this statement has no element(s) of religion, philosophy, or metaphysics. The only way to relegate IC to religion is to slander the definition. Your comparison of IC to a weak boxer is simply a straw man. The analogy doesn't fit unless the strength of the boxers is simply a parallel to the numerical strength of the voices in each camp, regardless of the quality or correctness of what is being said. Making Judaism and Mormonism analogous to spectators is incongruent with the point of my comparison. Again, I never said or implied that religious topics in Wikipedia should go up against Darwinism (although your comparison smacks of arrogance, arbitrarily portraying Darwinism as the superior opponent). I merely said that articles about a topic should not be framed in such a way that the majority of information presented comes from its detractors, in the same way that the articles about Judaism and Mormonism are not. Strobels (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Also note that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child,[1] the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's,[2] and Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design.[3] Hope that helps, remember to provide sources for your arguments in accordance with WP:V while taking care not to include original research. . dave souza, talk 08:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, no, your comments don't help. Your statements here are purely personal opinion, not empirical evidence. In fact, they are not even an argument from reason. Simply saying "would be readily apparent," "employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism," and "Irreducible complexity is a negative argument" doesn't make it so. Neither does citing instances where like-minded people have said the same. You have to show empirical evidence which you have not done. Every citation you have included thus far has been from non-objective sources simply restating their own opinions of the evidence. In legal terms, this is called grand standing. On the up side, I've come to terms with the nature of this series of articles and how they have been hijacked by a majority makes right crowd. I take comfort in the history of science in that just because a majority control the pulpit and shut out competition, beliefs that turn out to be false eventually collapse under their own weight and truth eventually comes out in the end, no matter how undesirable. Strobels (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- The essential point about the boxing ring analogy seems to have gone over your head. You can't have it both ways. Either IC is essentially religious, or it is essentially scientific in nature. If it were obviously the case that IC is purely religious, the article would have to be rewritten to reflect that. However, such is not the case. Its proponents have made it clear that they see IC - and wish to present it - as a scientific challenge to "Darwinism". In other words, they stepped into the ring and laid down a challenge. Unfortunately, their fitness for such a contest is sadly lacking, as pointed out by various scientific and mathematical commentators (see article citations). Any Wikipedia article on a scientific topic must give due weight to the mainstream scientific views of that topic. Our core policies, and a history of consensus and decision-making up to and including rulings by the Arbitration Committee, spell this out clearly and simply. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Then I would say on your last point here, we essentially agree. IC is, and has been presented by its proponents as, a scientific, theoretical model to explain and interpret the data. It is similar in this way to Darwinism during its introduction to the scientific establishment, or the theoretic heliocentric model of the solar system during the days of Copernicus. And in the same way, the majority (at least for the time being) determine which analysis and conclusion will be considered "valid," "worthy of consideration," or "correct." This is not to say that IC is eventually going to win out in the same way, but simply to say that virtually all scientific hypotheses that are now in the majority had to endure the same repression, slander, ridicule, and marginalization that IC does now. As a result, a forum such as Wikipedia that runs on a majority rule basis has predictably played the role of enforcer in the current paradigm regime. As for me personally, I simply can't escape the fact that as I continue to sift through the data, I continue to assess that IC is the best model of biological origins and development presented so far, but I remain open to any new evidence, wherever it leads. Strobels (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's quite a lot of reasonably new evidence shown here, with an update here showing that Behe, having found an example that "couldn't" have evolved, did nothing. While the "pathetic just-so story" of science led to a brand new avenue of research for immunologists and virologists all over the world, including tetherin's role in influenza, ebola, EBV and herpes, with the potential to help treat all kinds of viral infections. IC may be the best model of biological origins and development presented so far as a way of propping up some religious dogma, but it's useless as a research tool. Whatever. dave souza, talk 08:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "propping up some religious dogma" (I don't have a religious dogma to to prop up), but I was referring to an explaination for the existence and construction of observable biological structures. As far as Behe's work not being useful for some other specific scientific endeavor, then so what? My hammer is practically useless for trying to screw in screws, but it's great for what it was designed for--hammering. I'm unconcerned if others look at the data and reach a different conclusion. If I follow someone else's belief as to what the evidence means, rather than my own analysis, aren't I simply appealing to "dogma" rather than logic and reason? Strobels (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- All explained! . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you're trying to communicate something, then please elaborate. Thanks. By the way, if all you intend to say is contained in that satirical clip, there's nothing new about straw man arguments. It contributes nothing to the discussion except to preach to the evolution hypothesis choir with a little emotional cheerleading. Strobels (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- All explained! . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "propping up some religious dogma" (I don't have a religious dogma to to prop up), but I was referring to an explaination for the existence and construction of observable biological structures. As far as Behe's work not being useful for some other specific scientific endeavor, then so what? My hammer is practically useless for trying to screw in screws, but it's great for what it was designed for--hammering. I'm unconcerned if others look at the data and reach a different conclusion. If I follow someone else's belief as to what the evidence means, rather than my own analysis, aren't I simply appealing to "dogma" rather than logic and reason? Strobels (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's quite a lot of reasonably new evidence shown here, with an update here showing that Behe, having found an example that "couldn't" have evolved, did nothing. While the "pathetic just-so story" of science led to a brand new avenue of research for immunologists and virologists all over the world, including tetherin's role in influenza, ebola, EBV and herpes, with the potential to help treat all kinds of viral infections. IC may be the best model of biological origins and development presented so far as a way of propping up some religious dogma, but it's useless as a research tool. Whatever. dave souza, talk 08:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Then I would say on your last point here, we essentially agree. IC is, and has been presented by its proponents as, a scientific, theoretical model to explain and interpret the data. It is similar in this way to Darwinism during its introduction to the scientific establishment, or the theoretic heliocentric model of the solar system during the days of Copernicus. And in the same way, the majority (at least for the time being) determine which analysis and conclusion will be considered "valid," "worthy of consideration," or "correct." This is not to say that IC is eventually going to win out in the same way, but simply to say that virtually all scientific hypotheses that are now in the majority had to endure the same repression, slander, ridicule, and marginalization that IC does now. As a result, a forum such as Wikipedia that runs on a majority rule basis has predictably played the role of enforcer in the current paradigm regime. As for me personally, I simply can't escape the fact that as I continue to sift through the data, I continue to assess that IC is the best model of biological origins and development presented so far, but I remain open to any new evidence, wherever it leads. Strobels (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- The essential point about the boxing ring analogy seems to have gone over your head. You can't have it both ways. Either IC is essentially religious, or it is essentially scientific in nature. If it were obviously the case that IC is purely religious, the article would have to be rewritten to reflect that. However, such is not the case. Its proponents have made it clear that they see IC - and wish to present it - as a scientific challenge to "Darwinism". In other words, they stepped into the ring and laid down a challenge. Unfortunately, their fitness for such a contest is sadly lacking, as pointed out by various scientific and mathematical commentators (see article citations). Any Wikipedia article on a scientific topic must give due weight to the mainstream scientific views of that topic. Our core policies, and a history of consensus and decision-making up to and including rulings by the Arbitration Committee, spell this out clearly and simply. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, no, your comments don't help. Your statements here are purely personal opinion, not empirical evidence. In fact, they are not even an argument from reason. Simply saying "would be readily apparent," "employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism," and "Irreducible complexity is a negative argument" doesn't make it so. Neither does citing instances where like-minded people have said the same. You have to show empirical evidence which you have not done. Every citation you have included thus far has been from non-objective sources simply restating their own opinions of the evidence. In legal terms, this is called grand standing. On the up side, I've come to terms with the nature of this series of articles and how they have been hijacked by a majority makes right crowd. I take comfort in the history of science in that just because a majority control the pulpit and shut out competition, beliefs that turn out to be false eventually collapse under their own weight and truth eventually comes out in the end, no matter how undesirable. Strobels (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)