User talk:Rednblu

Tools

A to Z... Wikipedia:A to Z... CitationStyleMAJOR... CitationStyleMinor... Policies ... Village_pump ... Power structure ... Sysops ... DelLog ... Surveys ... VanIP ... # ... RfA ... RfC ... RfAr ... Notices

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

"Only because the people see
So much in land and sky
For which they do not know the cause,
They think Divinities are working there.
If they could but see that
Nothing can be created from nothing,
Then they would advance one more step
Toward the answer that they seek:
Those eternal elements became
Everything that is,
Without interference from Gods."
--Lucretius, "De rerum natura," written about 60 BC

---

After visiting the Galápagos Islands photographed from a NASA satellite above, Charles Darwin in 1859 first published the "cause" for the many forms of life on earth including man, accomplished by natural selection from previous forms without divine intervention.

1... 2... 3... 4...

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)

Sistine ceiling, Michelangelo, 1512. Two paintings very close to each other separated everywhere by unpainted stone. From a dualistic perspective, both one painting and two.

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 Wikipedia. Care to join us.? :)) You can be part of the alliances if you would like. ::)) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia 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)

File:Adampromethe.jpg

Prometheus in Chains, by Nicolas-Sébastien Adam, marble, 1737.

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 Wikipedia'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 [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], 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.[[1]].

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)

Wikipedia: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)

Besides the POVisation of the intro, the Spiritual section was also POvized. Now instead of humans being alternately defined as spiritual, we have spirituality as a facet of human culture. More cram-it-down-your-throat "SPOV" Scientific Point of View. And of course now culture is merely a facet of human biology. Tom Haws 06:39, Mar 15, 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."

Wow! You are an insightful guy, Red. Hats off to you. Someday you and I ought to have a good discussion about this. But I fear I may not be much of a creationist, despite my burning spiritual reality. Heaven, yes. Spirit, yes. Eternity, yes. Creation, what do you mean when you say that? It's a loaded word. Tom Haws 06:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

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)

File:FootprintsFossilized.jpg

Working link . . . . Fossilized footprints from 3.6 million years ago of a human-like adult and child; perhaps they were Australopithecus afarensis.

These footprints were made in volcanic ash that hardened; then more layers of ash fell over the footprints. Erosion eventually brought the hardened traces of the footprints to the surface where they were found by Mary Leakey and her coworkers. Of these footprints, Mary Leakey said, "At one point, and you need not be an expert tracker to discern this, she stops, pauses, turns to the left to glance at some possible threat or irregularity, and then continues to the north. This motion, so intensely human, transcends time. Three million six hundred thousand years ago, a remote ancestor--just as you or I--experienced a moment of doubt."

Is "Evolution is fact" an effective pedagogical approach?

Here is a permanent link to some of the discussions. ---Rednblu | Talk 02:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories commented out

Thanks. Good luck with your project. -Willmcw 01:07, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Human

Hi Rednblu, I've posted a compromise suggestion for the introduction of Human at Talk:Human#Compromise suggestion. It begins with Pharos' suggestion for the first sentence, which I believe you felt comfortable with, then it moves into the beginning of the current intro, and then discusses abstract reasoning, language, speech, society, and ends with evolution v creation. It's not perfect by any means, but it might get us closer to a version both sides can live with. Your views would be most welcome, particularly if you feel something's missing and can think of a way to work it in. Best, SlimVirgin 09:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. See Talk:Human/Rednblu. Sorry. Tom Haws 16:08, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

From my user page: "Currently on Wikiholiday from Human due to a discussion impasse; adding content to User:Hawstom/Chalkboard."

Thanks for the alert. See you at User:Hawstom/Chalkboard.

Duality

The duality (physics) page which you linked to spoke only of wave-particle duality and I removed the page. If you want to link to wave-particle duality, do so. I just guessed you meant dualism and I apologize.

• The duality (physics) page which you linked to spoke only of wave-particle duality and I removed the page. If you want to link to wave-particle duality, do so. I just guessed you meant dualism and I apologize.
  • Yes. Wave-particle duality is the most obvious form of "duality"--in which the observation is so dependent on how the observation is made. Would you agree? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I would agree, I just didn't realized that was what you wanted to express Rmrfstar 01:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your query

As you've started by e-mail, you may as well continue that way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be playing a game. I don't really want to be involved in games. You have my e-mail address if you wish to explain further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

To SV: Thank you for moving the discussion to the User:SlimVirgin/Human page. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)th

Discussion of an NPOV policy that actually works

The discussion is taking place on the User:SlimVirgin/Human page. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The page is gone. Tom Haws 17:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. You can visit the March 2005 deletion record of that page here. Probably, the discussion should be in a more public arena anyway, such as on the NPOV page and on the No Original Research page. What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 18:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionists?

I was kinda hoping to discuss with you again at some point, and I'm trying to figure out if I fall inside your definition or not. (It'd be kinda wierd if I did, but I can adapt ;-) ). That and it's bound to be a question that might pop up in conversation with Salva31. :-)

On your user page, you state that "evolutionists are people who believe evolution is a fact."

That appears to be a contradictio? In ordinary english (no epistemic headaches for me today. ;-) ) I'd think that either you believe in foo, or you know foo to be a fact.

So I'm a bit confused. If you have some time, could you unmuddle me please?

Kim Bruning 09:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Rednblu has very neatly captured the notion that evolutionists believe evolution is a fact without knowing it in a certain sense (IOW, they take it on faith rather than because they are convinced by evidence). Belief in God is similar. I think evolutionists believe in evolution in the same way I believe in Beijing.Grace Note 10:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Admin?

While typing here, I suddenly remember something!

Ages ago (like last year even) I'd checked to see if you met admin criteria, and you did. (I'd checked Hawstom, Feloniousmonk and yourself at the time)

Unfortunately I got sidetracked&distracted by events in between.

So anyway, now that I've remembered again, would you like me to nominate you?

apologies for waiting so long

Kim Bruning 09:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, some folks have expressed concerns about my wanting to nominate you. It's a bit strange though, since I haven't actually seen any policy breeches from you. No worries, that's why I always talk with people before nominating, so there's no nasty surprises on RfA. Could you perhaps contact me and give your side of the story? Any form of communication is fine, but you might prefer per wikipedia e-mail for diplomatic reasons. See also: User_talk:Mel_Etitis#Please_help_me_out_here. Kim Bruning 11:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that should you ever step out of line as an admin, we could always just blackmail you. ;-) An excellent motivation to do a good job I'd think. Let me ponder on this. Kim Bruning 10:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

science is ok for nice toys like computers and such, but science and the world reconcile as this in my mind, science is just this little kid racing to catch up, to understand, and may have missed something critical in its hurry.

also, as for creationism and evolution, why's it matter? really... gods can create things and then change them right? why not try to find a way to reconcile both beliefs? [ Comment by Gabrielsimon ]

````

the qustion seems to still lack an answer..... Gabrielsimon 20:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done with edit war

Forget it, you win. Like I said- Im no expert.

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting the minor vandalism on my User page. I've no idea what he thought he was doing, or why... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

an opinion please

id like to know if you think any of my postings around seem like vandalism to you. (im a little concerned about such things) Gabrielsimon 01:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

here is a complete list, if the link works. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Gabrielsimon

Gabrielsimon 01:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia style for titles

Like many editors, I've corrected various titles to conform to proper English (and Wikipedia) style — mainly misuse of capitals for articles and prepositions. Very occasionally someone takes offence, and insists on changing it back; the example you give is the only one that I can remember recently. The anon in question has offered no grounds, not even an edit summary, for the change. I wonder what makes you think that the incorrect English is the correct title? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. But which style manual are you referring to? Which one says that titles should (or may) have capitalised prepositions or articles? I've never seen one, but I'd be interested to be proved wrong. Moreover, it's Wikipedia style, which is more important in this context.
2. If the anon had made any attempt to explain the reverts, or used a static IP address, then I'd have engaged in conversation of the subject.
3. Note that this article is in case only existing by the skin of its teeth. It has already been made into a redirect on the basis that it lacked sufficient (actual or potential) content to stand alone, and the anon recreated it under a new name.
4. I'm perplexed; has the anon approached you? Not on your User page, but presumably by e-mail. Why didn't he or she explain on the Talk page of the article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was thinking of actual style manuals, rather than individual lecturers' advice to students, which most of those Googled pages are (and the first one spells 'attendance' with one 't', which doesn't inspire confidence). Why did you add "blue book" to the search terms, incidentally? In any case, though, none of them allows the capitalisation of 'with'.

I'd be more than reluctant to use Amazon as an authority (they got all sorts of things wrong with my own first book, including my name (they stuck a "Ph.D." in the middle of it...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(copied from my Talk page Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Chipping in: no, we should not say that, Rednblu. Wikipedia has its own house style, detailed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The Wikipedia capitalisation of book titles, album titles, and song titles is the same as that of most academic style guides. However, the Manual of Style is much more elastic than the standard academic styles, and it absolutely is sympathetic to anons; one of the first things it says is: Clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required. I can't seem to find the sections about book, album, and song titles this late at night (in my time zone), but, generally speaking, Amazon.com conventions are no substitute for the wiki house style, and the wiki book, album, and song capitalisation rules really should be followed as far as possible (most appropriately followed by silently correcting them, the way Mel did). One reason for this is that the titles of many, many wiki articles are book titles or song titles. Article titles, once in place, aren't as simple to change as other text around the site. The "Go" and "Search" commands are case sensitive, so [mis]titling an article, say, The Country wife or The country wife instead of the correct (house style correct, not "English" correct!) The Country Wife will cause real trouble, even though of course using plenty of redirects will be useful there. Hope this helps.--Bishonen | talk 23:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rednblu!

For voting and commenting in support of my RfA! I appreciate it very much! Yours, El_C 03:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Serial comma

Hello. In the past, I think you've spoken in favor of having guidelines on the serial comma in the WP Manual of Style. Currently, a few users have been taking out all guidance on that, replacing it with a statement that the MoS takes no position. They've said they reached a consensus on the talk page. Would you care to comment there? Jonathunder 22:13, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Hello...

<<Until you came along, "With" had been capital for quite a long time. Leave it be, because I won't be giving up. DrippingInk 15:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)>>

<<You are right, Sir DrippingInk.  :)) You are right. You have encountered unreasonable authority. And you are right, and unreasonable authority is wrong. Nevertheless, how about you and I just let unreasonable authority--together with unreasonable authority's bad grammar, bad spelling, bad vision, bad logic, and blindness to written rules and protocol--just have their day for a few days?  :)) I suggest you and I should just let it be for a few days, what do you say? ---Rednblu | Talk 15:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)>>

So were you perhaps agreeing or disagreeing with me? I'm actually uncertain of which.

You appear to be quite the perky person. I am doing fine. Is there anyway that I can stop Mel Etitis from changing the articles? DrippingInk 00:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not from Chicago but from Toronto. I don't like arguments. Hee. But I just want to stop Mel Etitis. He is really ticking me off. DrippingInk 22:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if there is any argument that would be best suitable... ugh. I really don't think there is one. Just out of curious, how do you upload an image without it being stripped from a page by Mel Etitis? I had copyright and everything up... I don't get him. Is he out to get me?

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#FeloniousMonk. --goethean ॐ 18:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for undeletion [2]

I have been asked to provide the details of our conversation of March 2005. Accordingly, please undelete what is under this Deletion link to some non-controversial place, such as to the as yet unconstructed page User_talk:Rednblu/Human. Thank you. Rednblu | Talk 01:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• That's a user subpage of mine, which I deleted because there was no need for it. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)</sup> 01:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

There is need to have the discussion on that page available because the discussion on that page is integral to the official proceedings of the Talk:Human page as you can see at this link. The discussion on that page was moved from Talk:Human/Rednblu, is that not so? Rednblu | Talk 03:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what you mean by "the official proceedings of the Talk:Human page." The link you gave me was back in March. This is just a user subpage of mine that wasn't needed. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)</sup> 04:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I wouldn't expect you to remember our discussions. Many people have written to me asserting that what is on that page is needed to assess the User:Rednblu account. That whole deleted page was moved from the Talk:Human discussion, is that not so? Perhaps if you could restore that page just temporarily to some page under my account we could both look at it and perhaps then delete it again. What could be the harm in that? Rednblu | Talk 04:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't keep going back and forth about this. The page isn't needed for anything, and how could anyone know that it's "needed to assess" the account (whatever that means) given that it's deleted? Whatever's going on, I'd prefer not to be involved. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)</sup> 04:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Do you have time to restore that deleted page to some page under my account? Sorry to trouble you. I am not sure what you meant when you wrote "there is a problem regarding the Rednblu user account." But we don't have to ever figure that one out.  :) Let's move forward. You created the page Talk:Human/Rednblu where we had that March 2005 discussion, then you moved that discussion to User_talk:SlimVirgin/Rednblu, and then the page disappeared. Isn't that exactly what happened? Many people write to me saying that they have to see our discussion that was on that deleted page. My only interest is to have our discussion available for them since they ask for it. If what they tell me is right, and that is how I remember it also, this deleted page is not just your thoughts and cogitations. Many other people were part of those discussions also; so the discussions are a proper part of Wikipedia proceedings. Maybe you don't want that page restored under your account? Fine. Then please restore that page under my account, thank you. Sorry to trouble you, but we need that discussion undeleted. And I cannot do it myself. So I would appreciate your help here. Thanks. Rednblu | Talk 05:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

That's a user subpage of mine, which I deleted because there was no need for it. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)</sup> 01:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what you mean by "the official proceedings of the Talk:Human page." The link you gave me was back in March. This is just a user subpage of mine that wasn't needed. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)</sup> 04:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't keep going back and forth about this. The page isn't needed for anything, and how could anyone know that it's "needed to assess" the account (whatever that means) given that it's deleted? Whatever's going on, I'd prefer not to be involved. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)</sup> 04:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Rating Experiment

Hi! What do you think of this? Tom Haws 06:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You are a great sport and a great friend. I especially appreciate your support since the template immediately went to Templates for deletion.  :-D Tom Haws 03:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The beliefs behind the Rednblu account

Rednblu, if it would help at all, you may feel perfectly free at any time to direct to me any user who persists with doubts about whether your user page is a good-faith representation of your beliefs. Since I have perhaps more evidence than you would feel comfortable my sharing indiscriminately, you may want to let me know by e-mail just how much you would want me to share. If nothing else, I can always stake my personal reputation on the fact. Tom Haws 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am going to jot down at User:Rednblu/Good faith a few items of which I am aware that may help. Tom Haws 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for your pleasing and motivating comments on my userpage :) Joshuarooney 12:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Plato's Stranger Quote:

In answer to your query, sir, I hope that you won't mind if I don't quote James or Spinoza who are well-known but who didn't do particularly valuable research vis a vis Plato, rather to get to the pertinent remarks, one need only open up FDE Schleiermacher's Introduction to the dialogue Sophist (where, of course, the Stranger first puts in his apperance according to FDE) - and, since I only have this beautiful prose in deutsch I hope you don't mind: Ä ä Ë ë Ï ï Ö ö Ü ü

[from pp.92/94 of the Akademie Verlag (accurate!) edition - Volume II-2.]:

"Denn im Lauf der Untersuchung über das Nichtseiende entsteht,gerade wie sie selbst als ein höheres in der über den Sophisten entstanden war, die Frage uber die Gemeinschaft der Begriffe, von welcher alles wirkliche Denken und alles Leben der Wissenschaft abhängt; und es eröffnet sich auf das bestimmteste die Anschauung von dem Leben des Seienden und von dem notwendigen Eins- und Ineinandersein des Seins und des Erkennens. Gröβeres aber gibt es nirgends auf dem Gebiete der Philosophie, ... und zugleich darauf, daβ Erkenntnis weder ohne Ruhe noch ohne Bewegung, weder ohne Stehendes noch ohne Flieβendes, weder ohne Beharren noch ohne Werden bestehen könne... indem ja diese das letzte ist, worin die Indirekte Darstellung, auf deren höchster Höhe wir uns hier befinden, endigen muβ.....Daβ hier in der Tat das Wesen aller Philosophie ausgesprochen ist, bedarf für den, dessen überhaut empfänglich ist, keiner weiteren Erörterung.....deshalb kann man mit Recht den "Sophisten" als den innersten Kern aller indirekten Darstellungen des Platon ansehn, und gewissermaβen als das erste in seiner Art völlstandige Bild des Mannes selbst."

and then, a little while later (as I'm sure you're eagerly awaiting the Stranger...)

"Es ist auf jeden Fall bedeutend, dass diese Wiederlegung des Parmenides einem Eleaten in den Mund gelegt wird; .... die Äuβerungen des Fremdlings..."

I hope that (although somewhat abbreviated) the above quote will enable you to understand that this may INDEED be a very important piece of Plato scholarship... need I quote Allen Bloom who states that Schleiermacher appears to have the "best grasp" of the character and the meaning of Plato's dialogues. (Intro to Bloom's transl of the Republic, p. xxiii.)

Of course, I am new at the wiki stuff and will not pretend to know all of your ways ... If there are people who are interested in something other than 'Socrates', something a bit more mature in Plato's works ... I would be happy to introduce these important concepts to you - and being a stranger myself, it seems rather appropriate. Phillip 13:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Naturally, a lot more can be found in FDE's introductions to Statesman and Symposium...

Today I've posted some comments to Mel, here I'm copying them to you > Dear Mel (please cc: Red&BLue..) This morning I've done a little friendly editing on the Plato page (somebody seems to have messed up the late dialogues as they were commented out... I commented them back in). A few other minor changes on this page... Then I put more on Schleiermacher's basic contentions in the Stub on the Socratic Problem > this seems to be a good place to stick it. I will not hide the fact that, naturally I do have a translation of Schleiermacher into English (9 dialogues) and see myself as "his defender." He's been terribly misused, the Rowolts edition of his works changes HIS ordering that he considered absolutely CRITICAL to a right understanding of Plato >> so, even though when you buy Plato in Germany and it says that it's by FDE, actually it ends up being totally misordered which is something that he would have a hissy fit about if he were still around > they also dare to go in and change "a few words" around, to better suit the "tastes" of the time... I go into this for you so that you may believe that I TOO very strongly HATE it when unqualified people mess up other people's hard work by their incompetence. My question for you is whether IF I did go to the trouble of, say, adding a new page to go into all of the ins and outs of FDE's stance, whether this Page would have any hope for not being deleted or re-edited by fools who "the community" accepts as knowing where-of they speak.... this is - I guess - a difficult question and I'm not even sure if you are the person to whom it should be addressed. As I have said more than once, I am new at this wikipedia way. I have been using the HUMAN page as a sort of sandbox to see how minority views are treated... you may wish to have a look at the discussion there - everything is One, as far as Plato, Schl. and I am concerned...

thanks, Phillip 12:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC Perhaps it is time to decide 'whose' talk page we want to use to discuss all of this, mine may make the most sense... I'm still simply exploring whether wiki finds my "knowledge" acceptable to it's "editing rules" ... and the like... thanks. Phillip 12:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC) here is my Input to Mel: I'm afraid that all this simply confirms that you have an agenda that militates against the Wikipedia aims of NPoV, as well as indicating your dismissive view of those who disagree with you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC) My agenda is defending Schleiermacher, I do not dispute this; whether Wikipedia desires that such old-fashioned views are worth including - this is up to you, Red&Blue and whoever else you may see fit to include... Everything that I have input in the Plato and Socratic problem pages can be backed up with citations from Schleiermacher's Introductions to his translation of Plato. I'd be happy to give you the titles, dates & Publisher if you'd like the same. I have been straight forward and as careful as I could be in trying to state Schl's viewpoint in a neutral manner - I do not have any desire to spend much more time improving wiki without some support on the desirability of my input; it is easy to accuse others of POV - truly understanding the highest level of scholarship takes years of dedication and research; I have become used to being dismissed and will continue to shrug it off: the ball is in your court, I realize that my additions to the "Socratic problem" page don't precisely fit in there - but I needed a sort of sand box to place what I see (from working through FDE's transl. of Plato) as most fundamental, and this seemed an OK spot, not too much traffic and -being a stub- it requested input; plus there isn't a Socratic problem, there seems to be a Stranger problem - so, that wraps it up; I'll check back here in a few days - or you can feel free to contact me at philliplundberg@earthlink.net if you and yours see any sense in having my input. I thank you for your efforts in considering my strange case, yours, pl. Phillip 11:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

the ball is in your court; thanks, Phillip 11:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Biasutti's map

Thanks for fixing my incomplete deletion at Human skin color -- but I read your edit note. If you feel the map should remain, then please respond to my comments on the talk page. Peace. deeceevoice 18:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! I appreciate the important clarification. Still, IMO, there is a serious issue about equating the skin color of the Khoisan with Arabs and Maghreb Berbers. It's simply not anywhere near accurate.

Good morrow, sir

OK, that was clever and funny. ;) In case you're interested, Archimedes quote contains a pun -- Κινω had a double meaning in Archimedes time. Air might be a plus either way, and I'm not sure where you'd put the fulcrum (although in the second meaning a fulcrum is not necessary). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Economy of Darjeeling

The Economy section of Darjeeling has been organised as per your comments. Please see if it sounds ok now. You can also leave comment on the FAC of the article. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

!!!

Ca va bien? Grace Note 05:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The "fact" of evolution

What's wrong with characterising a well-supported observation as a "fact"? If someone said "it's a fact that Mars is the next planet out from the sun" or "it's a fact that Proxima Centauri is the nearest star" or "it's a fact that New York State covers 54,520 sq mi" would you consider them "aflicted with the disease of Religion"?

Evolution is an observation. Granted, in most cases it's an observation which we cannot make with the naked eye - it's an observation which depends on instrumentation, and the instrumentation needed to make the observation has a certain (known) amount of error involved in it. You can't take a ruler and measure the area of New York state. You can use an number of other tools, the reliability of which depends on a lot of other things being reliable (be it a survey's level or a satellite's sensors). If different tools gave significantly different area estimates, and they were all, as far as you could tell, accurate, you would have a hard time calling the area of NY State a "fact". On the other hand, if they all gave about the same area (within some margin of error - after all, the area of the state changes between high tide and low tide, one would assume), most people would feel comfortable calling it a "fact".

Another nice example is transpiration. The fact that water moves from the soil, through the plant, to the air, is a simple observation. Sure, making the observation depends on scientific theories about things like heat transfer and radiation detection. How transpiration works isn't settled science - almost everyone accepts cohesion-tension theory, but there are notable dissentors.

That's where it stands with evolution. If all you had was fossil data, then calling evolution a fact might be a bit of a stretch. But there are huge amounts of corroborating observations. Enough that one can sanely call the accumulation of evidence "a fact". Now, this isn't to say that the evolutionary history of any single lineage is well enough known to be called a fact, but the collective evidence is overwhelming. How evolution happened/happens is another issue altogether. That's science, that's a theory. But that evolution happened (and continues to happen) is an observation. Guettarda 17:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: Your worthy comments [3]

Greetings, my friend! I have appreciated and relished your thoughts and careful analyses.

But that evolution happened (and continues to happen) is an observation.

I would agree with you. But I also think I understand why I agree with you. I agree with you because my act of what you call "observation" is inescapably shaped by the mechanics of my cognition.

Separate from my cognition, I would say, is "fact"--which the standard English dictionary defines as "Information presented as objectively real." And what is "objectively real" depends critically on the experience level of the audience. I can present something which for me and for other informed people is "objectively real"--but if my audience does not have the experience within which what I say is "objectively real" for them, then I have failed to score a "fact" with that particular audience.

And what I observe from my experience is that, yes, Stephen Jay Gould presents evolution as "fact"--that is, he presents evolution as "information that he presents as objectively real." But Stephen Jay Gould's presentation does not score as "objectively real" with the creationists because the creationists do not have the cognitive apparatus and experience within which the presentation could ever in a million years--without enormous evolutionary advancements of the creationists' cognitive apparatus--score with them as "objectively real."

From a very secular viewpoint in which there is no God, never has been a God, never will be a God, Stephen Jay Gould is in the same secular situation as the Christian missionaries when they confronted the heathen on whatever shores they fulfilled their mission. One religion presents as "fact" what the audience cannot ever accept as "fact" unless they convert and believe by faith what they cannot--with their limited experience and cognitive ability--ever see as "objective reality." --Rednblu 22:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

National Security Councils, worldwide

Hi. No disagreement to your changes at the National Security Council article. Also, I tried to respond to your clarification request in the talk page there. Please take a look at the National Security Council - Turkey page where my two recent attempts to make fair and informative changes were reverted (tried again today). I believe most of the content matter there are journalistic commentary rather than encyclopedic information on the institution. I need the administration's help there.

I responded on the Talk: National Security Council page. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Rednblu 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing each other again...

Not at wikipedia.... Maybe at a new initiative.... If I get unemployed, I will work on that. It will not be to difficult to make something better.... -- Kim van der Linde <sup>at venus</sup> 01:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much

Hi there,

Just wanted to say thanks so much for heliping out on the Bongo (antelope) article I'm working on. I'm new to this so please help out as much as you can!

Thanks so much again,

Black Stripe 20:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

erm?

The pathology link on your user page seems to point to the wrong destination. Debivort 17:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

2 states: one people (Case of Romania and Moldova)

Dialects and regional varieties

Main article: Varieties of Romanian language

The term "Romanian" in a general sense envelops four hardly mutually intelligible speech varieties commonly regarded as independent languages. For more on these, please see the article "Eastern Romance languages".

It is thought that the Romanian language appeared north and south of the Danube. All the four dialects are offsprings of the Romance language spoken both in the North and South Danube, before the settlement of the Slavonian tribes south of the river - Daco-Romanian in the North, and the other three dialects in the south.

However, this article deals primarily with Daco-Romanian, and thus the regional variations of that will be discussed here instead. The differences between these varieties are usually very small, usually consisting in a few dozen regional words and some phonetic changes.

Romanian varieties (graiuri)
Blue: Southern varieties
Red: Northern varieties

Like all other languages, Romanian can be regarded as a dialect continuum. However, such a formulation tends to obscure the high homogeneity and uniformity of the language. The Romanian language cannot be neatly divided into separate dialects and Romanians themselves speak of the differences as accents or "speeches" (in Romanian: "accent" or "grai"). This correctly conveys the linguistics notion of accent, as language variants that only feature slight pronunciation differences (Romanian accents are fully mutually intelligible). Several accents are usually distinguished:

• Muntenian accent (Graiul muntenesc), spoken mainly in Wallachia and southern parts of Dobruja.
• Moldavian accent (Graiul moldovenesc), spoken mainly in Moldavia, northern parts of Dobruja and the Republic of Moldova. Written <p> is realised as /k/; written <c> before front vowels is realised as /ʃ/. Written <ă>, in final position, is palatalized.
• Maramureşian accent (Graiul maramureşean), spoken mainly in Maramureş.
• Transylvanian accent (Graiul ardealean), spoken mainly in Ardeal.
• Banatian accent (Graiul bănăţean), spoken mainly in Banat. Written <t> before front vowels is realised as /ʧ/.
• Oltenian accent (Graiul oltenesc), spoken mainly in Oltenia and by the Romanian minority in Timok region of Serbia. Notable feature of this dialect is the usage of the Simple perfect tense rather than the Complex perfect which is used in other dialects.

Over the last century, however, regional accents have been weakened due to mass communications and greater mobility.