Jump to content

Talk:Ken Ham: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 109: Line 109:
{{reflist|close=1}}
{{reflist|close=1}}
05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
===Comment===
Several sources describe Creation Science as "pseudoscience." None describe Ken Ham as a "pseudoscientist." In my view, adding such a category breaches [[WP:BLPCAT]]. And the category is probably not justified, since Ken Ham isn't even '''pretending''' to be a scientist. -- [[Special:Contributions/101.117.29.185|101.117.29.185]] ([[User talk:101.117.29.185|talk]]) 05:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:56, 1 May 2014

Lede: Suggest amend "not supported by any physical evidence" to "contradicted by the physical evidence"

In the lede, I suggest we amend "is not supported by any physical evidence" to "is contradicted by the physical evidence", because the physical evidence does not just fail to support his theory, rather it is the case that the physical evidence actively disproves his theory. We're not just talking about an absence of evidence here, but rather about evidence that shows his theory is wrong (pace omphalism, solipsism, the dream argument, the evil demon, the brain in a vat hypothesis, the Matrix, and other epistemological arguments which cast doubt upon the existence of the world of physical evidence or our ability to perceive it). Also we should add the reference to astronomy discussed above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not a fan of litotes, I'm guessing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not averse to their use but 'not supported by' isn't really equivalent to 'contradicted by'. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support the change to the more accurate presentation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be happy with "not un-disproven" Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


"Refuted" would be better than "contradicted." Science is contradicted by creationism, but not refuted by it. But, Creationsims is refuted by sicence. Greater specificty is more informative. Howunusual (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff that's not in the sources

In this edit, DavidLeighEllis changes "His claim that the universe is 6,000 years old, based on his belief in biblical literalism, is not supported by any physical evidence found in the Earth's fossil, biological and geological records" to this: " The mainstream scientific view of his claim that the universe is 6,000 years old, based on his belief in biblical literalism, is that it is not supported by any physical evidence found in the Earth's fossil, biological and geological records." Fine, but look! None of the sources it's cited to say anything about "mainstream" science. Is this not unsourced negative material being added to a BLP? Or is he taking Ham's word for it that they're mainstream?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already changed it back. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution of POV is not considered to be original research or unsourced. Example: Source: Organization Y website: X is true. Wikipedia, citing source: Y believes X. But the source only asserted X as an unqualified fact, not that Y believes it!!! If we go down this rathole, then we can't use any source that isn't NPOV itself... We're dealing with the volatile nexus of mainstream science and mainstream Christianity. It is certainly not Wikipedia's place to take sides in this epistemological struggle. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't take sides, we report the facts. There is no POV in a scientific fact which makes this edit misleading, and against WP:FRINGE. See the threads above, this has been discussed at length already. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a POV in saying science=fact and religion=fiction, don't you think? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I really don't. Regards. Gaba (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You either made up the "mainstream" descriptor for the scientists or you took it from Ham's characterization of them. Either way it's not acceptable. Personally I'd like to see the whole sentence deleted, but consensus seems to be for it to stay. Thus it should be verifiable and neutral. Your insertion of the word "mainstream" is unsourced. It's possibly not neutral, but that's not important in relation to the fact that you just put it in in front of some footnotes without bothering to see whether the sources supported it, which they don't. Attribution is not OR, but the decision of who to attribute to can be OR. How about if I wanted to say that the "devil-worshipping scientific view of his claim is" whatever? Are you claiming I don't need a source for "devil-worshipping"? If I do, why doesn't "mainstream" need one?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between "mainstream" and "devil-worshipping" is the difference between proper, obvious attribution, and just making stuff up. The scientific POV is a POV, and requires attribution in contexts in which other POVs (millions of young-earth creationist Christians) are relevant. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. the "scientific POV" is not a "POV" that needs attribution on overwhelmingly and well documented and long proven facts. see WP:ASSERT and Wikipedia:YESPOV -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We evidently disagree on what constitutes "fact" and what constitutes "opinion". Let's consider the following: should Book of Genesis contain any exposition of the evident conflict between a literal interpretation of the events recounted therein with modern cosmology? (I'm sure we can find sources for that...) If so, should the scientific view be asserted as unqualified fact, or attributed as opinion? Let me remind you that efforts to equate "neutral point of view" with "scientific point of view" have been firmly rejected. Do we assert in the Wikipedian voice that scientists have facts and the religious are living in fantasy land? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scientists do have facts, what religious people have is faith. And no, a scientific fact is not a POV and this particular religious nonsense also happens to be WP:FRINGE which makes it WP:UNDUE to try to make it sound like there are "two opinions" on the matter. Regards. Gaba (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Purely in terms of headcount, there are two opinions on the matter. The epistemological struggle between analytic and intuitive reasoning is hardly new. I'm sure Epicurus must have had a quite similar debate with believers in the Greek pantheon. You propose that one side is so far right that it has "facts" and the other is so wrong that its beliefs are "nonsense". But so far as Wikipedia policy and practice are concerned, I invite you to try the same procedure on Book of Genesis or a similar article, and see how much traction you get. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No there aren't two "opinions" on the matter. There are scientific facts and WP:FRINGE nonsense. No idea what you are talking about with the Book of Genesis, WP covers lots of written fiction, the issue here is that Ham believes his fiction is reality and that's what we state as per WP:NPOV. Regards. Gaba (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you're incorrect, but for different reasons than my old friend RPoD. Calling "science" "mainstream science" in this context connotes a possibility of non-mainstream science (but still science) disagreeing with the attributed view. That's what there's not sourcing for.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you deny that the article currently has a footnoted quote in reference 3 stating, amongst other things "Some mainstream scientists have calculated the age of the earth at approximately 4.5 billion years"? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That's a quote from Ken Ham. I discussed it explicitly in my original comment in this section. You're proposing to let Ken Ham define mainstream science in Wikipedia's voice, then?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Sam Harris stated in a different context, "This is how you play tennis without the net." Ken Ham's book is a reliable source insofar as it concerns what mainstream scientists believe (that's one of the reasons we're citing it), but only to the extent that the scientific point of view is described as unqualified fact. Lol. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So your claim is that Ken Ham, criticized by some people, is a reliable source for a description of those people and their views in Wikipedia's voice? Ken Ham thinks scientists are atheists. Is it your position, then, that it would be OK to use Ken Ham's words as a source to state in Wikipedia's voice that "mainstream scientists don't believe in God."? Ken Ham has said explicitly that "scientists are not objective truth seekers." Is it your position that we could state in Wikipedia's voice that scientists are not objective truth seekers because Ken Ham is a reliable source on what mainstream scientists believe, i.e. in not being objective truth seekers? Is that an accurate characterization of what you're asserting? Is it based on some general principle? Perhaps you can expand on it? This is really a tangential issue, anyway. Wouldn't you rather discuss the issue in the section above?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ham's book is a reliable source to source his nonsense and absolutely nothing else. That's the reason we cite it. Regards. Gaba (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that WP:NPOV and WP:BLP compliant editing is best effectuated by editors who claim that the article subject "believes his fiction is reality" and describe his beliefs as "his nonsense"? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you have a very incorrect notion of what Wikipedia's WP:NPOV is a about. It is NOT about providing a false WP:BALANCE. and so yes, when the subject is spouting nonsense that is contradicted by all science, calling it nonsense is absolutely appropriate NPOV and since BLP is conditioned on NPOV if you are not also assessing nonsense as nonsense you are in violation of BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without wishing to add any heat to this discussion, I have added one reference from the AiG site for a list of evidences claimed to support a young age.Cpsoper (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refs formatted, notes split from refs

I have uniformly formatted the references, added archives where needed and split the notes out of the references. I have also split up the bundle of references in the lead. I suggest access dates be changed to straight numerical format (yyyy-mm-dd). I have added website parameter to citations that are published exclusively on the web. I also formatted the bibliography. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC) An editor has formatted all dates in references to dd mmmmmmm yyyy. I have no strong objection, but I think the reference section would be more concise if access dates and archive dates were in straight numerical format (it ISO compliant also) yyyy-mm-dd. I am just expressing my preference and looking to see what the consensus is. I am not suggesting changing the date of the content, just the access date and archive date. I don't consider this of paramount importance and more than willing to follow consensus or yield to an editor with a strong opinion. I do appreciate the effort to establish and maintain uniformity in the references. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the article would be better, and simpler to maintain, with all dates in the same format. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem for me. I guess its a consensus of 2, "same format for all dates dd Mmmm yyyy". - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive quotation

The position that anything but a direct quotation does not closely adhere to a source has no support in WP:VER or WP:NOR. This was completely unnecessary, and quotes an excessive length of text. This article is in danger of becoming a quote farm. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be perfectly happy to state the equivalent of Ham is undermining science education and U.S. science literacy in Wikipedia's voice without the direct quotes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Oh, and DLE, please do not misrepresent my edsum. It said "closer adherence to source" and did not at all imply the position you ascribe to me. Writegeist (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rv of edit in lead cited to Courier-Journal

I reverted this edit to the lead. As explained in my edsum, careful reading of the source shows that the edit inadevertantly misrepresents what is actually only the reported opinion of anonymous attendees; as such it is probably inappropriate to this BLP and certainly not sufficiently important for inclusion per WP:LEAD. Also I can't find discussion of this addition anywhere on this talk page, contrary to the clear implication ("see talk") of the edit summary that accompanied it. I hope my revert is agreeable to others editing the article. If not, please open a discussion of reasons to support reinstatement per BRD. Writegeist (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content removed was added to the article on 13 April diff by TheRedPenOfDoom modified the same day diff and then removed on 22 April by an IP editor diff. I restored the content diff and it was then removed again diff with the edit summary "(Undid revision 605278598 by MrBill3 (talk) Reported opinon(s) of anonymous attendees (read source) not important per WP:LEAD; contrary to previous edsum, no discussion of this text at talk AFAICT)". I apologize for my edit summary "see talk" I mistakenly thought I remembered some discussion of this content.
The source specifically says,
"Although Nye made a withering critique of Ham's brand of creationism and found a public platform to warn that its dismissal of established science would harm the education of children and hamper the nation's ability to innovate, some attendees said, the debate still faced criticism."
What part of the sentence is the author's analysis/summary and what part is attributed to some attendees? If the author found the summarized statements of some attendees appropriate to report does that make it appropriate WP content? Both DavidLeighEllis and Writegeist have raised the issue of DUE in LEAD. I think it is good content and belongs in the article. I appreciate this discussion being opened and hope EW can be avoided. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
something in the lead needs to specifically address the source of Ham's notability: the reaction to to his advocacy of tossing actual science out the window and teaching non-science as science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with that. His notability rests on widespread RS coverage of his advocacy of young Earth creationist views etc.; also his presidency of AiG and connection to the Creation Museum. My understanding is that notability is a criterion for the existence of an article, not for its content, e.g. in this instance Ham tossing actual science out of the window etc., but not the reaction to the, um, tossing. Maybe I misunderstood you? Writegeist (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE is policy about the coverage of content- we cover in proportion to what reliable mainstream sources consider worthy of covering- the controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it hinges on UNDUE, not notability. I see now that you were prolly using "notability" in the normal rather than the WP-specific sense. Writegeist (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MrBill3:The part of the sentence from 'Nye" to to the first comma represents the opinion of anonymous attendees ("some attendees said"). I don't think the fact that a publication reports anonymous opinions legitimizes inclusion of anonymous opinions in WP articles. But if there are RSs for Nye's actual critique (there are), and for him saying that KH's brand of creationism with its dismissal of established science would harm the education of children and hamper the nation's ability to innovate, that's another matter. Writegeist (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the confusion from MrBill3 confusion is that the previous section on excessive quotes is about this quote in my head, as in this quote showed up then that section showed up. That seemed one to one to me, and maybe not but would not be surprised is MrBill3 is also remembering that. XFEM Skier (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Writegeist's interpretation. I also tend to agree that a RS for Nye's actual critique and content developed directly from that is more appropriate than the current content. I agree that a newspaper writer's summary of some audience members interpretation is not the strongest source for including the "harm to education and hampering of innovation". Is there a more RS that states that? Certainly as Writegeist said there are RS's for Nye's critique being withering and what Nye specifically criticized. The content should be better sourced. I also agree with TRPoD that something about this belongs in the lead. The analysis of and reaction to Ham's "tossing" is important. I appreciate the civil, policy based discussion going on. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the removal of this content. Not only is it WP:UNDUE, but it misattributes anonymous attendee's views as the newspaper's. I'm surprised the material lasted as long as it did. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside for a moment the form in which Nye's critique was presented in the content now deleted (i.e. by reference to opinions from anonymous sources), do you think any mention in the lead of the views Nye expressed in the debate, if verifiable in RSs, would be in violation of the UNDUE part of WP:NPOV policy? Writegeist (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nye's views on Ham aren't so significant a constellation in the universe of RS on Ham to justify mention in the lead. This is material for the body of the article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nye's views as Nye's views are probably UNDUE, however, Nye's views as appropriately representative views of the mainstream scientific community are appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TRPoD. That Ham chose to debate Nye and much of the coverage support the contention that Nye represents the mainstream scientific consensus' views and response to Ham and his ideas. Not sure how DLE missed the massive coverage from a wide spectrum of the scientific and other communities of Nye's participation, his presentation and it's implications. I'd think more of galaxy than a constellation in the universe of RS on Ham. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the article Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate, which I had started in my user space a while ago, into the main space. Not as complete an article as I had hoped to eventually write, but it might give those interested some source material on Nye's actual comments in and about the debate, since that seems to be of interest here. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of well sourced content in short time

107.178.34.115 has twice removed well sourced stable content diff, diff. This content was just previously removed by 107.178.34.109 diff. It has been restored three times by two different editors. I also support the inclusion of the content. As mentioned it is well sourced. This material should not be removed without discussion and consensus. The repeated removal in a short period of time is edit warring and rapid edits from more than one IP are suggestive of sock/meat puppetry especially in the absence of discussion on this page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for semi-protection again. I note that a request has already been made on RFPP. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of pseudoscientist category

The category pseudoscientist has been repeatedly removed from this article. The category is clearly supported as the subject is a young earth creationist and asserts that as scientifically valid, this is clearly pseudoscience (looks like, walks like..., scientific consensus etc.). This category was added by one editor and restored by two other editors. Repeated removal within a short period by a single editor with no discussion on this talk page is edit warring and not appropriate conduct on WP. This post serves both to notify the editors involved (QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, Theroadislong, StAnselm) and to open a discussion. As multiple editors have supported the inclusion of this category and one has removed it in violation of WP PAG the category should be restored pending policy supported consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:PAG are you referring to? I removed it under WP:BLPREMOVE as unsourced contentious material. But also, the category was a recent addition, so, per WP:STATUSQUO you shouldn't have added it back without discussion and consensus. StAnselm (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring specifically to Edit Warring a very clear policy with a brightline rule which you are clearly in violation of. Your assertion that the category pseudoscience is not appropriate is not supported by two other editors or the sources, to wit: References that specifically use pseudoscience to describe Ken Ham's position. 1[1] 2 [2] 3 [3] 4 [4] 5[5] 6 [6] 7[7] 8[8] 9[9] 10[10] 11[11] Comment: " not a scientific project, nor even one much related to knowledge of the natural world" [12] That should serve to resolve the sources issue for the category pseudoscientist. With the clear support of two other editors and this bulk of sources I am replacing the category. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, none of these sources use the word "pseudoscientist" to describe Ham. StAnselm (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference list

  1. ^ Rosenau, Josh (17 August 2012). "Ken Ham is an unreliable guide". Thoughts from Kansas. ScienceBlogs. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  2. ^ Stern, Mark Joseph (5 February 2014). "Ken Ham Bill Nye Debate: Science and fact versus fiction and fantasy". Slate. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  3. ^ MacMilan, David (25 March 2014). "As a reformed creationist, I hope Bill Nye doesn't underestimate Ken Ham". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  4. ^ Harris, Dan (6 February 2014). "Bill Nye goes head to head with Ken Ham over creation debate". Nightline. ABC News. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  5. ^ James F., McGrath (11 January 2014). "Progressive Christianity is a Threat to Ken Ham's Deceptions". Exploring Our Matrix. Patheos. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  6. ^ Schulson, Michael. "Whole Foods: America's temple of pseudoscience". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  7. ^ Stear, John (28 September 2007). "The Australian Aboriginal, an attack by Ken Ham". No Answers in Genesis. Australian Skeptics. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  8. ^ Etchells, Pete (5 February 2014). "Bill Nye v Ken Ham: Should scientists bother to debate creationism?". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  9. ^ Uri, Ike (14 February 2014). "Storify: Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate doesn't further science". University Daily Kansan. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  10. ^ Paz-y-Mino-C, Guillermo. "Bill Nye defeats Ken Ham at Creation Museum". Your View. The Standard-Times. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  11. ^ Bailey, Matthew (10 February 2014). "America's pseudo-science problem". The Crimson White. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  12. ^ Stoker, Elizabeth (5 February 2014). "Inside Ken Ham's mind: Why the creationist couldn't sustain a scientific discussion". Salon. Retrieved 1 May 2014.

05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Several sources describe Creation Science as "pseudoscience." None describe Ken Ham as a "pseudoscientist." In my view, adding such a category breaches WP:BLPCAT. And the category is probably not justified, since Ken Ham isn't even pretending to be a scientist. -- 101.117.29.185 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ken_Ham&oldid=606583706"