User talk:Ungtss

Baraminology

In the interests of keeping the size of the talk page manageable, I thought it prudent to touch on some of your points here.

The problem I see with your "beak" versus "no beak" encapsulation, Ungtss, is that it doesn't really accurately convey the position; significant new traits DO emerge as the result of variation, and when they do, baraminologists simply say that the coding must have been there all along, but not expressed. In short, their claim cannot be falsified.

As for the definitions you mentioned, I've seen them before, and read the papers you cited. At the risk of being blunt, it's my considered opinion that they amount to little more than verbal obfuscation with very little substance. "They look alike" is "They look alike," regardless of how it's camouflaged with polysyllabism; "potentiality region" boils down to "We think X is possible" or "We think X is impossible." Strip away the jargon, and I have yet to see a single Baraminologist paper that amounts to more than this.

In fact, as I recall the paper that was the source of the definitions you offered expressly noted that their classification system was entirely arbitrary, since it was based on undefined "holistic similarity." They handwaved that, however, by saying that the problem would be fixed by future research. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

I do think that there's a place for the terminology that was deleted on the page; they are, after all, the terms employed by Baraminologists. I do not, however, think that using impressive-sounding terms to make simple topics sound complex and formidable amounts to science.--BRPierce (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with everything you say -- the only qualification is that I think the same criticisms apply to evolutionary cladistics as well. Beneath impressive-sounding methodologies, it really amounts to "we think everything's related, and we think this is similar to that, so we think they must be related." Both enterprises are highly speculative, IMO.

The real value in baraminology, I think, comes not through trying to identify the baramin, but in the alternative interpretive framework it provides for evolutionary history. Extremely rapid speciation following a population bottleneck is a powerful explanatory model for what we see today, I think. Ungtss (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

...a model, however, that is not consonant with observed evidence. A young-earth model requires that we accept the premise that numerous scientific discplines examining numerous different lines of evidence are simply (and spectacularly) wrong--not merely evolutionary biologists, but physicists, astrophysicists, geologists, and paleontologists, as well. To achieve the biodiversity we observe today from a family-level number of "kinds" within 4000 years would require speciation events on a daily basis, and there's simply no evidence of that. Moreover, attempts to reconcile the fossil record with a young-earth model (particularly a Flood-based model) have been lacking, to say the least.

Coupled with that, the majority of "problems" with evolution aren't really very problematic; many of the objections raised simply aren't particularly valid. I honestly don't think that anyone not operating with the starting assumption that the Bible is a literal and true account of Creation would conclude a 6000-year timeframe from an examination of the evidence. --BRPierce (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about a rigid 6,000 year timeframe? That's just the extrapolation of one guy, based on a number of assumptions not merited by the text. One could just as easily start with the histories in the Critias or Timaeus, and come to the same basic conclusions -- originally designed, followed by population bottleneck. Ungtss (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The precise young earth timeline used is unimportant; the point is that any young earth timeline is contradicted by large amounts of evidence in multiple fields. (And, yes, that's true notwithstanding intellectually relativistic claims of "We interpret the evidence differently.") Young earth models don't explain the observed data from radiometric dating; they just say "Everyone else is doing it wrong." Young earth models don't provide a testable theory for explaining the age of starlight; they simply speculate that maybe "time dilation" occurred, despite the fact that there's no evidence of same. No young-earth model provides a viable explanation of the fossil record, as every mechanism proposed by young earth advocates is contradicted by fairly simple observations.

I'm curious, and would like your honest answer: do you believe that an impartial observer would conclude that the earth was young without first being exposed to Genesis or a similar creation story? --BRPierce (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that baraminology and young earth geology have any link at all. It is entirely possible that the Earth is old, and yet life on Earth is designed, and relatively young. Consider what would be observed if we terraformed Mars, and seeded it with genetically engineered life. Old planet; young, designed life. I don't see what the age of the planet has to do with the question of whether or not life is designed.

As to the question of the age of the Earth itself, I'm agnostic. I think it's possible that the Earth is very, very old, and I am open to that possibility. However, IMO there is inadequate evidence as yet to determine the age of the Earth. Radiometric dating is based on one fatal assumption -- the assumption that we know the original composition of the rock. K-Ar dating, for instance, measures rock age by comparing current composition to original, assumed composition -- in that case, it is assumed that there was no Argon in the rock when it originally formed. However, brand new lava from volcanoes is observed to have Ar in it from the very beginning -- over and over and over. The assumption underlying K-Ar dating is demonstrably false. Does that prove that the Earth is young? By no means. It only proves that we don't know how old the Earth is.

Now let me turn things around.

1) There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of the sun consistent with known laws of physics.

2) There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of the moon consistent with known laws of physics.

3) There is no naturalistic explanation for the aesthetic harmony of the orbital periods of the planets (following a golden ratio series to within 1/1000 of 1 percent correlation.

Do those unanswered questions prove that the solar system was constructed? No. But it does show that there are more open questions about our origin than today's scientific community is willing to concede.

First and foremost, I am curious. I hate it when creationists claim to know what they don't know; and I hate it when evolutionists claim to know what they don't know. I just want us to all admit what we don't know, and get on to honestly asking the questions. If origin by design is excluded a priori, we've already hobbled ourselves in that quest. Ungtss (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But that's just it; it's not. The reason science doesn't accommodate explanations of supernatural design (and let's be totally honest here, ID is about supernatural design, and specifically supernatural design by the God of Abraham, politically-correct evasions aside) is that we can't test that. We have no test to detect the presence of God. God could create a universe that looks entirely natural; God could have created the universe three seconds ago and simply implanted memories of everything prior to that in our minds.

We can't, however, test that. Attempting to apply scientific methods of investigation to that is like trying to use an eggbeater to write an essay. It simply doesn't work, just as (in my opinion) those who attempt to use the Bible as a science book are using it for an unintended purpose, which results in error. --BRPierce (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what baraminology has to do with "supernatural" explanation. I don't believe in the "supernatural," and I think the whole concept is based on poor philosophy. Consider a man who grew up deep in the Amazon jungles, who has never seen a radio. Then, one day, we show him how a voice can come from a box -- and that if you speak to the box, the voice will speak back. He may well say that the box is "supernatural!" But that is not because the radio violates the laws of nature. It is because the man a) does not know enough about the laws of nature to understand the laws according to which the radio operates, and b) does not know how the radio was made.

If an intelligent being interacts with the physical universe (be it God, humans, cats, whatever) -- it must do so through causal mechanisms -- and therefore be part of Nature. If indeed life was designed, it must have been done somehow -- and therefore have been natural, not "supernatural."

I don't believe the word "supernatural" is a useful word. The things we call "supernatural" either exist or they don't. If they exist, they're not "supernatural," they're "unexplained." If they don't exist, they're not "supernatural," they're "fictional."

Consider: genetic engineering is the only mechanism we know of that can overcome the hurdle of an irreducibly complex alteration to a lifeform. Why do we exclude genetic engineering (which is observed) in favor of some unknown, unobserved, series of highly improbably, lucky chances? What makes what we've never seen so much more "scientific" than what we have seen?

So yes, I agree with you that the "supernatural" can't be tested. But I don't see anything "supernatural" about genetic engineering -- except that I understand it might appear supernatural to us, who don't understand it. Ungtss (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

...except that, in order to accept the premises inherent to baraminology (which explicitly include an omnipotent deific designer,) we have to accept that that designer is an exception to all of the rules cited for the "impossibility" of evolution. It is argued that complexity requires design, but we are expected to accept that an infinitely-complex designer was not the product of design. It is argued that every effect must have a cause, but we are expected to accept that the designer did not have a cause. It is argued that intelligence must be the product of design; again, we are required to accept that an infinitely-powerful intelligence could happen without design.

Thus, "supernatural" is the only word that really fits the argument. We are expected to accept that there are natural laws, and that these laws have force for everything EXCEPT the designer--who gets a pass. If the argument requires that he be beyond all of the natural laws upon which the argument for design is predicated, how is "supernatural" not apt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRPierce (talk • contribs) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, before you say "The designer is not necessarily supernatural," I'm going to suggest that that's begging the question. Yes, the idea of highly-advanced aliens as designers is occasionally tossed out...but then we need to explain where those aliens came from, and we're right back to the same question. In order to accept that life without design is impossible, we must, by definition, accept a designer who inherently contradicts that rule. --BRPierce (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

First, let me apologize for usenet style responses. I don't know how else to address long posts that make multiple points, so I am responding to each paragraph in turn.

...except that, in order to accept the premises inherent to baraminology (which explicitly include an omnipotent deific designer,) we have to accept that that designer is an exception to all of the rules cited for the "impossibility" of evolution. It is argued that complexity requires design, but we are expected to accept that an infinitely-complex designer was not the product of design. It is argued that every effect must have a cause, but we are expected to accept that the designer did not have a cause. It is argued that intelligence must be the product of design; again, we are required to accept that an infinitely-powerful intelligence could happen without design.

First, I don't know that baraminology holds omnipotence or godhood as a premise. Baraminology is simply the idea that life was built in more than one original form, and was preloaded with the capacity for genetic variability. What in that requires omnipotence? Or godhood? Consequently, I don't think we need to accept the existence of a designer that violates the rules used to support a designer. But more importantly, I think the classic ID arguments (intelligence must be the product of design) are philosophical, rather than scientific, positions. They fall into the same category as the cosmological argument and the ontological argument. That is to say, they may be true or false, but they are certainly not scientific, because they are a priori, rather than evidentiary in nature -- and consequently I'm not particularly interested in them. I am interested in research that tests the hypotheses in question -- universal common descent, mechanisms of genetic variability, etc. Ungtss (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thus, "supernatural" is the only word that really fits the argument. We are expected to accept that there are natural laws, and that these laws have force for everything EXCEPT the designer--who gets a pass. If the argument requires that he be beyond all of the natural laws upon which the argument for design is predicated, how is "supernatural" not apt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRPierce (talk • contribs) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, since I deny your premise (that the designer must be omnipotent and your characterization of ID), this conclusion carries no persuasive power. I don't think "every cause must have a cause" or "intelligence must come from intelligence." But I'm open to the possibility that we were caused by an intelligent agent, and that our intelligence came from intelligence. That is, until the evidence convinces me otherwise. Ungtss (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, before you say "The designer is not necessarily supernatural," I'm going to suggest that that's begging the question. Yes, the idea of highly-advanced aliens as designers is occasionally tossed out...but then we need to explain where those aliens came from, and we're right back to the same question. In order to accept that life without design is impossible, we must, by definition, accept a designer who inherently contradicts that rule. --BRPierce (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why "must" we explain that? "Must" we explain where the Aztecs came from before we can acknowledge that they built great cities? Must we know who Bill Gates' parents were before we can acknowledge that he built Microsoft? I'm content with answering these questions one step at a time -- even if the answers are not comprehensive during my lifetime. In other words, first I'd like to know whether or not we were designed; only when/if we settle that question in the affirmative will I be interested in finding (or even capable of looking for) lines of evidence to discover "who were these builders, and where did they come from?" Ungtss (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

...then, by all means, take steps to settle that question. Construct testable hypotheses and test them. Synthesize the findings of these hypotheses into a theory, and share that theory (and the data) so that it can be tested by others.

This is what Intelligent Design advocates of all stripes, and Baraminologists in particular, have yet to do. Where is the data pointing to ultra-fast speciation? How has the idea of multiple "kinds" been tested? Where is the data supporting the rejection of genetic similarity in favor of "holistic" (and subjective) standards of similarity?

I agree with you that Intelligent Design arguments are philosophical and not scientific...and until they change this by rigorously and precisely defining and testing their claims, that's not going to change. Baraminology falls into the same category; it's long on beliefs and short on tests of any kind.

This is where there is simply no equivalency between modern evolutionary synthesis and I.D. While a major portion of the efforts of I.D. advocates seems to be, not to produce evidence of design, but to undermine or discredit evidence supporting modern evolutionary synthesis, the fact remains that that evidence exists. We have a good idea of how ERVs function; we observe that significantly different species share ERVs in common. We are able to infer that those ERVs most likely have a common source; this is in keeping with the observed evidence of how ERVs work. We could also infer that an intelligent designer, for some unfathomable reason, designed the two species with common ERVs, but that is NOT in keeping with the observed evidence of how ERVs work.

Thus, I'm not sure how you can argue for an equivalency. I don't necessarily have to agree with the conclusions of an experiment to accept that it employs valid scientific methodology--but I do expect to see data, I do expect to see predictions, I do expect to see experiments affirming or invalidating those predictions. I have that in abundance when it comes to MES; when it comes to intelligent design, it's conspicuous by its absence. (And, frankly, I don't think the usual "It's a vast scientific conspiracy against us!" argument of I.D. advocates holds water; it's a convenient excuse that falls apart under any kind of scrutiny.) --BRPierce (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My argument for equivalency is not premised on ID and UCD being equally scientific -- it is premised on their being equally unscientific. And it's important to qualify that statement with my definition of science -- not "quality of research" but "falsifiability of conclusions." That is to say, 1000 great scientists can use the most advanced methods in the world, and 1 crappy scientist can use no method at all -- but if the conclusions reached by both groups are unfalsifiable, then I consider them to be equally unscientific -- because no matter how good the methods are, science is incompetent in the realm of the unfalsifiable.

That's why, I think, much of the work in ID is criticism of UCD. It's not that ID can have an empirical basis at this point, really -- we just don't have the tools. But in my opinion, UCD is claimed as "scientific fact" based on faulty, unfalsifiable, and misleading evidence. Again, it's not that ID is science -- it's that neither ID nor UCD are science, but the proponents of UCD do not realize that.

That having been said, I think your argument makes clear the significance of interpretation in how we approach evidence. Since ID and UCD are equally philosophical, the argument takes place not in the research itself, but in the interpretation of the evidence. Does that mean there is no research that goes directly to those issues? No. But it also means that research intended for other purposes can be interpreted within either interpretive framework.

For example: ERVs are a classic example of the importance of interpretation in our reading of evidence.

We use ERVs every day in genetic engineering. They are the vectors for genetic engineering -- we use them to implant/alter genetic material.

We have never observed an ERV infect a germ line. Really think about that -- how is it that a virus infects a gonad, the sperm or eggs of that gonad are viable, the child organism has one chromosome with the ERV, then somehow that ERV on that single chromosome spreads to both chromosomes in the entire population. Now imagine that happening 300,000 times in the case of humans. And remember that none of that has been observed occurring, ever. We have never seen how a virus can infect a gonad and be passed to the next generation. Also consider: many ERVs have been shown to be beneficial, even indispensible, to the organisms. Sheep cannot reproduce without theirs. Also consider: we share maybe 8-10 ERVs with the great apes. Yet we have thousands of fragments, in different places. If we were part of the same gene pool for a much longer period than we were part of separate gene pools (as CD would predict), shouldn't the proportions be reversed? Shouldn't we have many more ERVs in common than of our own? Yet we don't. But if ERVs were the mechanism of our genetic engineering, wouldn't we expect to have a lot of differences? Of course, because the engineering would have been done separately.

So on one side of the scale, we have "ERVs are observed every day as a mechanism of genetic engineering." On the other side of the scale, we have an impossibly unlikely mechanism for how those ERVs got there that is inconsistent with the proportion of similarity, and the open question -- "why are they so often beneficial?"

Which interpretation appears more reasonable to you? That's a philosophical question. But I'll choose the observed mechanism over the unobserved, unexplained, improbable mechanism that's inconsistent with the evidence anyday.

So when it comes down to it, yes -- I'm all about doing good, falsifiable baraminology research. If I weren't currently a military officer living in Turkiye, I'd be all over that. In the meantime, I do the best I can learning about and interpretting evidence being brought to light by both sides of this timeless debate. Ungtss (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur with Hrafn concerning "interpretation." I think it's the single biggest weasel-word currently employed by creationists and I.D. advocates. "We merely interpret the evidence differently." The truth is that that "interpretation" includes looking at inconvenient evidence (say, radiometric dating for a YEC "interpretation") and simply saying "Nope, that's wrong." (Possibly bolstered by carefully-selected examples of cases in which radiometric dating was misused as "evidence" that it doesn't work.)

I don't understand why you keep bringing this back to radiometric dating, when I said I have no objection to the Earth being old, but I do have an objection to "scientists" using evidence based on disproven assumptions. Ungtss (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that any evidence can fit into an I.D. "interpretation" is meaningless, precisely because any evidence CAN. No matter what evidence comes to light, a believer in I.D. can say "Well, the designer might have wanted it that way, for reasons too complex for our limited minds to understand."

That's the very definition of unfalsifiability. On the other hand, there are many, many pieces of evidence that would falsify modern evolutionary synthesis--starting with the famous "Rabbit in the Precambrian" and working up from there.

That's not a falsifiable experiment. That's a hypothetical discovery. You could throw out hypothetical discoveries to falsify ID, too -- a time machine that brings us back so we can watch the primordial ooze come to life, in real time. Both of these are epistemologically useless, because it is not an experiment that can be replicated today. Ungtss (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider the track record of predictions thus far. Evolutionary theory predicted that speciation was possible; Creationists denied that it was. The prediction turned out to be valid, and Creationists were forced to retreat to a fallback position. Evolutionary theory predicted that new traits could emerge as the result of a series of mutations, whereas Creationists and design advocates insisted that mutations were not beneficial and the odds of a series of mutations resulting in a beneficial trait exceeded the universal probability threshold. Lenski's work with E.coli has fairly conclusively demonstrated the validity of the theory.

Define species in this context. Do you mean "reproductively isolated?" Because if you do, I'm curious who denied that one part of a species could become reproductively isolated from another. Do you mean "distinct physical characteristics?" Because if you do, I'm curious who denied that a species can vary. The real issue is "increase in complexity," and always has been, since the days of Paley. As to Lenski, there's an important fact not to be overlooked: the machinery for metabolizing citrate was already in place -- but only worked in an anaerobic environment. How much change was required to permit that metabolism to take place in an aerobic environment? The evidence isn't clear as yet (and it's curious to me that they haven't sequenced the bacteria yet, since that would be such a fascinating study), but it could well have been a single point mutation that broke down the mechanism that was preventing metabolism in an aerobic environment. We don't know. Without that, this isn't anything to write home about. Ungtss (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we do a "single experiment" that proves common descent? Of course not. Can we engage in a variety of experiments that test a variety of hypothesis, and so build up a preponderance of evidence in support of the theory? Yes...and that, of course, is precisely what has been done over the last century. To balance that out, you have I.D. advocates saying "We interpret it differently."

The funny thing about "burdens of proof" is that the evidence can be interpretted different ways. Juries have split votes all the time. The magic of real science (when it can be performed) is that it does not depend on preponderance of evidence, or consensus. It is not up for a vote, because it can be demonstrated. Not so with UCD. That's why UCD is not science. All consensus shows us is that scientists have been taught to think a particular way. It does not show us that the position in question is true, because science is not about consensus. That's what we learn from Kuhn and his Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Ungtss (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would there be so many fragmentary ERV sequences in a designed organism? Why any fragments at all? That doesn't seem like particularly good design. Why genes for traits that are not expressed in the species? Why genes for highly-destructive traits? For that matter, why a jaw too small to accomodate the number of teeth in it?

Many computer programs contain subroutines that are not used by the program -- that's because programmers typically reuse code -- it's called "code bloat." As to genes for "highly destructive traits," I'd have to point you to a great book called "Survival of the Sickest." Ungtss (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You can always ask "Why" ad infinitum, and point out things that don't appeal to common sense. The problem, of course, is that common sense is frequently wrong. Paley's watchmaker appeals to common sense, but it's a critically flawed argument. Paley presumes an inherent ability to discern design, and observation tells us that ability simply does not exist.

This is interesting. What observation shows us that we cannot discern design? Ungtss (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Experimentation, not supposition; testable prediction, not speculation.

A standard to which I wish the advocates of evolution would also hold themselves. Ungtss (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So, no; I simply do not agree that evolutionary synthesis and common descent are "equally unscientific." I think that's intellectual relativism of a particularly pernicious sort--the moreso because, at its core, what I.D. is really about is undermining methodological naturalism, not merely one particular theory. --BRPierce (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well we may have to agree to disagree then. I do not think ID is about undermining methodological naturalism, because I have no problem reconciling the two in my mind. Does that mean that no opponents of methodological naturalism use ID toward their end? Of course not -- and I know there are supernaturalists out there trying to prove the existence of the supernatural through all this. But not me. As I said before, I don't believe the word "supernatural" holds any real meaning. I'd also point out that Francis Crick, who discovered the structure of DNA, thought ID was a very reasonable explanation for the origin of genetic information -- so much so that he advocated panspermia. And he was an atheist. Ungtss (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs really have very little to do with accepting or rejecting the validity of a theory...or, at least, they should. I myself am a Christian, and I do believe in God. However, I make no pretense that that belief is scientific; nor do I assume that my particular interpretation of Scripture is inerrant, or reject a priori any evidence that contradicts it. I don't reject the possibility of design; I reject the idea that it's a scientific theory. I don't personally believe that evolution or common descent happened independent of a Creator, but I acknowledge that that belief has no place in the theory.

I can respect that. Personally, I want an integrated set of answers -- I want my faith and my knowledge of science to be consistent with each other. If God (or something else) created life, then I want to know who, and I want to know how, and I want to know when, and I want to develop the tools to figure it out with reliability. If the results brought back by those tools show that there is no God (or any other type of creato), then I don't want to believe in God. I don't want "faith" and "science" to have no interface in my mind, where faith can believe something and science show me something else. I want an integrated set of answers that are consistent all the way from "science" through "philosophy" all the way to "faith."

I find it rather hard to accept the premise that I.D. is not about undermining methodological naturalism, given that the "father of Intelligent Design," Philip Johnson, explicitly said that the goal of I.D. was to undermine methodological naturalism and replace it with a science consonant with Scripture, and that the most influential I.D. organization is committed to this goal. You, personally, may be interested in the possibility of design independent of a supernatural Creator; as a movement, I.D. is not. --BRPierce (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not part of any movement. I'm just interested in figuring out where we came from, and I think baraminology (nascent as it is) sheds some interesting light on questions nobody else is asking -- e.g. what reliable, scientific criteria do we have to determine common ancestry across genera. I only wish WP was not so afraid of this "movement" as to bury these legitimate questions in invective. But nothing's changed in 3 years, and I suspect not much will have changed in 3 more. It's been a real pleasure discussing this with you -- take care of yourself. Ungtss (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Creation science are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Joshua. No reading of the talk-page would support the conclusion that I was using it for general discussion. The comments of mine that you deleted were directly pointed at article improvement: specifically the false statements in the article that no scientists has ever considered creationism to be a legitimate form of inquiry (which required factual refutation on the talkpage), the WP:OR definition in the original sentence, and the misapplication of WP:PS to creationism articles. Not that reality has any bearing on creationism pages. Fiction is much more comfortable. Ungtss (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Since our dust-ups on Wikipedia, much has changed. In particular, the question of whether or not an editors' understanding of a subject is properly reflected in an article is sidelined for a strict reliance on sourcing and, perhaps more importantly in these cases, a hierarchical ordering of sourcing which roughly takes the mainstream scientific canards as the best sources for describing observational evidence while the creationist sources are considered only good for describing what creationists believe and are not considered reliable statements of anything other than tenets of faith. Pursuant to this, the claims of the creation science proponents are not considered equal to the claims of those who oppose them simply because the statements of the National Academy of Sciences, the AAAS, etc. are considered at Wikipedia to be more reliable for describing scientific evidence than ICR, AiG, etc. It is not a level-playing field for creationist ideas. What is left is reporting about attributable and notable statements that creationists make, but these statements are only discussed on Wikipedia relative to their prominence -- something that is determined by considering the most reliable sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The intro sentence is not sourced insofar as it claims that CS intends to "disprove accepted scientific facts." That is WP:OR. The article is categorized as pseudoscience, despite the fact that (because it has a following within the scientific community) it is by definition an alternate theoretical formulation. I know you've worked very hard to rewrite the rules to the advantage of your personal philosophy and beliefs, but the article still plainly violates them. Not that that matters. And as an important side-point, you are citing these new policies as "the way things are now," but you are not supporting your rules with citations. Where are your new rules codified in WP policy? Ungtss (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Numbers says as much in his book (which I just finished reading a few months back). In any case, you are perfectly within your rights to ask for a citation to the chapter and verse for this statement. Perhaps what you are objecting to is "scientific facts". I agree that creationists don't see what they are trying to "disprove" as being "scientific facts", but on Wikipedia that's what we call them since that's what the most reliable sources that describe them call them. There's really nothing all that "original" about the statement. The creationists find it objectionalbe, but it is certainly true that creation science was set up to oppose mainstream science in the areas where creationists saw a contradiction between what mainstream science was saying and what their interpretation of the bible was saying. As for where my rules are codified in WP policy/guidelines, the best places to look at WP:UNDUE, WP:RS (especially WP:PSTS and WP:REDFLAG), WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm pretty sure no one is going to agree with you that just because some bizarro scientists think that creationism is great that makes creation science an "alternative theoretical formulation". I know of scientists who actively argue that astrology is proven scientific fact. It doesn't make it an "alternative theoretical formulation" on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

on Wikipedia that's what we call them since that's what the most reliable sources that describe them call them.

You're making up your own policy, not reflected in WP rules.[1] The rule is not "most credible opinion is fact." The rule is "no serious dispute is fact." Not "no serious dispute among evolutionary biologists," but "no serious dispute" period. Evolution/Creation is a hotly disputed issue around the world. Therefore, the NAS's opinion is not FACT, but POV, per NPOV policy.

WP policy does not distinguish between "bizarro scientists" and "scientists vetted by community college professors." Making that distinction is inherently POV -- because I might consider someone bizarro (say, for instance, Dawkins, who I'm seen show his complete ignorance of radiometric dating at a lecture to a university audience). You say on your user page that you would have opposed Galileo himself. I suppose he was a "bizarro scientist" until everybody came to agree with him. I would have supported NPOV in that case -- listing alternate theoretical formulations and trusting the reader to think for themselves. But I know you don't believe in that. And that's why I'm not going to participate in this conversation anymore. Ungtss (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The rule you are looking for is WP:ASF. In general, the community views the statements of scientists to be fact when they regard observable reality. That's just how it works. Indeed, "serious dispute" is contextualized by those who are the most reliable sources. There are people who dispute electromagnetism, but we ignore them in writing the "facts" of electromagnetism. NAS's statement is the opinion of the NAS, but it reflects certain facts about reality. Wikipedia does distinguish between the WP:FRINGE and those who are not fringe. You are absolutely right about Galileo too. It's all part of the WP:CRYSTAL nature of Wikipedia. I know that you would have supported Galileo, but unfortunately, since Galileo was unable to convince many of his contemporaries, his ideas were marginalized. Wikipedia marginalizes marginalized opinions.

By the by, I'm no longer a community college instructor. I'm now just another lowly doctorate-seeking peon.

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Wikipedia rules are intentionally left vague to support the community's ridiculous fear of experts. While we have some good lawyers who are useful in parsing the equivocal and sometimes contradictory language of policies and guidelines, the general attitude around here is to do things via rough "consensus" which, more-or-less means doing things by the seat of your pants. I can understand how this looks hypocritical, problematic, etc. to a trained lawyer, but it's just a cultural thing having to do with the very poor way this encyclopedia is run (and the general objectivist philosophy of its founder). I sympathize with your rule-based objection approach, but Wikipedia guidelines and policies are not the guiding light of the law. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In general, the community views the statements of scientists to be fact when they regard observable reality. That's just how it works.

That sentence encapsulates the problem in your thinking. You don't understand the difference between "CS research is rejected for publication by all evolutionary biology journals" (fact) and "CS is pseudoscience" (interpretation of fact). You don't understand the difference between "Humans and Chimps share X,Y, and Z characteristics" (observable reality) and "all life arose spontaneously, and shares common ancestry" (interpretation of observable reality). You don't understand the difference between "We lack the tools to falsifiably determine whether the universe has a center, and if so, where it is" (fact) and "The universe has no center" (interpretation of fact). It is that fundamental distinction between Fact and Interpretation of Fact that underlies all of Reason. Unfortunately, science curricula confuse the two as a matter of course.

Indeed, "serious dispute" is contextualized by those who are the most reliable sources.

CRSQ and the occasional papers of the BSG meet all objectively verifiable criteria for reliable sources (peer reviewed, published). Whether they meet the POV criteria (e.g. "Respected") is a question of POV.

I sympathize with your rule-based objection approach, but Wikipedia guidelines and policies are not the guiding light of the law.

And that is the second problem these articles face. You, and editors like you, use rules against your opponents, but when your opponents point out that you are violating the rules yourself, you respond by saying they're "not the guiding light of the law." In other words, the rules only apply to your ideological opponents, not to yourself. But well crafted rules and their even-handed application are the only things that hold society, and this microchosm of society (WP) together. If the rules are faulty, they need to be adjusted. If you disagree with the rules, leave. But do not apply rules when they suit you and ignore them when they don't. Personally, I think that the WP rules are wonderfully crafted, conceptually; and that if all users applied them (or were removed when they failed to apply them) WP would be an extraordinary environment for learning. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. As in the real world, power is seized by a few who seek to override the rules for their own purposes, and the loudest screamers win. In the case of CS, evolutionary fundamentalists are the loudest screamers, and they are winning. I don't mind. Anybody stupid enough to take those articles seriously is already lost -- and I'd rather the stupid people side with my opposition than with me. Ungtss (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, and the general consensus on Wikipedia is that the distinction between the two phrases is essentially meaningless for an encyclopedia hoping not to be caught up in nitpicking special pleading. We could spend our whole time hemming and hawing, parsing and reparsing to take into account the feelings of those who think that "the universe has no center" is an opinion rather than a fact, but it won't lend itself to simple, easy-to-understand prose. Let's take the second paragraph from electromagnetism:

“

A changing magnetic field produces an electric field (this is the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction, the basis of operation for electrical generators, induction motors, and transformers). Similarly, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field. Because of this interdependence of the electric and magnetic fields, it makes sense to consider them as a single coherent entity - the electromagnetic field.

”

is read as we currently have it. If we used your rationale, it should instead read: 

“

According to their mathematical definitions, the mathematical construct of a changing magnetic field produces the construct of an electric field (this has been associated with observations that were summarily considered by nineteenth century inventors and experimenters to be evidence for electromagnetic induction. The interpretation of those that believe in electric and magnetic fields is that such explains the actions of electrical generators, induction motors, and transformers). According to the mathematical constructs, what is mathematically described as a changing electric field would also mathematically generate the construct of a magnetic field. The mathematical interdependence of the electric and magnetic fields has caused some scientists to posit a single coherent entity - the electromagnetic field that is a mathematical abstraction of the two constructions. No one to date has ever directly observed or confirmed the electric or magnetic or electromagnetic fields that are described as permeating all space. Indeed, observing all of space simultaneously is impossible.

”

Go ahead and take up your claim with the reliable sources noticeboard. We'll see what they say.

Rules are applied haphazardly because that's how Wikipedia works. It took me a long time to come to terms with this. I am aware that there are rules which I am superficially violating. However, I am also aware that the community prefers to keep their rules vague, uncertain, and contradictory and does not deal well with attempted modification of them. Instead they invoke WP:IAR to allow for editors to weild them as weapons. That's how Wikipedia works. I wish it didn't, but there you go. Your attitude will cause you to be asked to leave. Just FYI.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As always, you're failing to distinguish between the falsifiable and the unfalsifiable. Is there a "electromagnetism denialism" movement out there? Of course not. That's because electromagnetism is falsifiable science, while "the universe has no center" is unfalsifiable philosophy, not science, because it cannot be tested. That fundamental distinction is built into the WP rules -- and that's why (if followed) they would work so well. Your failure to distinguish between the two is why you destroy WP articles. As to "superficially violating rules," I don't think there's any such thing. I think the rules are plain and clear. I think those who do not want to abide them describe them as "vague," and then make a habit of violating them. That's why WP is so poor at describing anything unfalsifiable. Because people like you don't understand the difference between fact and interpretation of fact. Ungtss (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of electromagnetism denialists out there. Many are on this list. Enjoy. "The universe has no center" is a vague restatement of the Copernican principle of which parts are definitely falsifiable and the tests done so far have all passed with flying colors. It's convenient for science-haters to want to restate scientific hypotheses to make themselves feel better about the parts of science they think are "unfalsifiable" or contradictory to their beliefs. However, in detail, scientists are a pretty conservative bunch and don't make vague statements unless they're asked to explain jargon as we are asked to do so here on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:The_face_of_ungtss.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:The_face_of_ungtss.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian naturism

Hello Ungtss,

I'm not sure how well you speak German or French, but you might be interested in our three-paragraph article on Christian naturism. Currently, it's in five European languages (including English) on my sandbox. Once the article is translated into another language, and it's agreed to where it should go (new article, separate section within naturism, etc.), it's posted to its respective-language Wikipedia. Often a painting of Adam and Eve is included as well. In case you find any spelling or grammar mistakes, feel free to correct them.

Thanks, RGNU (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Link to: RGNU Sandbox

Have you seen...

this? I thought you might be interested (It was founded by PJR). LowKey (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't! Thanks for the tip!!! Ungtss (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Liquefaction at Niigata.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Liquefaction at Niigata.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shizhao (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Coral sand.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Coral sand.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Coral sand.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Coral sand.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

'Creation account/story/myth'?

I don't know what your views may be in relation to the potential use of these terminologies but there is currently an opportunity for comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation_myth#Neutral_point_of_view.3F .

I'd also appreciate comments on the facebook groups that I have created on the issue of the use of myth related terminologies (as listed on my talk page). I'd like to find constructive ways forward.

Gregkaye (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)