Talk:Intelligent design

	Please read before starting
This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. Wikipedia policy notes for new editors: A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI) NPOV: Undue weight (WP:UNDUE) NPOV: Making necessary assumptions (WP:MNA) NPOV: Giving "equal validity" (WP:GEVAL). The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
Important pointers for new editors: This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theories and hypotheses. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said. Please use edit summaries. Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia. To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseam without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Wikipedia talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point. Please peruse the FAQ and the partial index of points that have already been discussed, and use the search box below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

Can we end the endless discussion?

Here is a proposal for the lede:

Intelligent design (ID) is the argument that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] The scientific community has roundly rejected the argument as pseudoscience.[1][2] Educators, philosophers, and scientists have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument--a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.[7][8] While conceding that they have yet to produce a fully worked-out scientific theory, proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins." Yet, it abrogates the methodological naturalism upon which modern science is based.[4][5][6] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1] They state that ID is not creationism and avoid assigning a personality to the designer; many, however, express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.[n 2]

1. This calls ID an argument, not a view, hypothesis, or theory.
2. It concisely defines ID as presented by its proponents.
3. It immediately identifies ID as pseudoscience, rejected by the scientific community, which is the only sector or society that matter in demarcating science and pseudoscience.
4. It identifies ID as a religious argument.
5. There is no OR; the POV is neutral; the requirements of WP:PSCI are met.
6. The lay reader is quickly apprised of ID's claims and why they are not legitimate.
7. It's true, verifiable, well-cited, and well-written.

Comments? Can we move it into the article? Yopienso (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest changing the second sentence to "It is presented as science by rejected but the scientific community as pseudoscience." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

We have a consensus to call ID pseudoscience. The 3rd sentence indicates it is presented as science. Yopienso (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso, my bad... that was in my brain, but didn't make the translation to text. I have amended my previous post to include the term. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

While my immediate response is that this looks less coherent and clear than the current opening paragraph, it will take a while to analyse and consider the differences. First point is that ID isn't just that argument shown in the proposed first sentence: the argument as stated is the teleological argument with a twist of explicit opposition to the process of natural selection. The central point about ID is that it's a theological argument or group of arguments, a religious belief dressed as science, and it's the latter point that makes it pseudoscience. Will comment further as time permits. . dave souza, talk 21:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take into consideration my response to you above at 23:10, 8 July 2014.

I agree with MisterDub's suggestion and see my last two sentences as needing some stylistic improvements. Yopienso (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose moving it into the article. I prefer the version in place as I see no real improvement with this one. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Excellent job. It capture very well the state of the literature and how ID developed in the 1990s to the present. I am One of Many (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I was too hasty and careless in comparing it to the current lead. While it does capture the state of the literature and how ID developed over time reasonably well, it is subtly too weak. The term "argument" gives it a status it really doesn't have. The term pseudoscience is watered down by moving to the second sentence. For scientists, ID is by definition pseudoscience, so it was never rejected as pseudoscience. I am One of Many (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This moves too far towards giving equal validity. Wikipedia does not self-censor to avoid offending some people who have alternative beliefs. The present lead is just fine and in line with the Arbcom ruling. However far we go to appease the creationists and cryptocreationists who waste so much time on this page they will always demand more. Are we going to end up changing every article about a fossil to say that it is x million/circa 6000 years old?Charles (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I regret to say that over the years here found several times the atheism/"scientism" crowd even more endlessly evangelical of their "beliefs" than the sometimes more rational religious editors they look down on and criticize. One of the best examples is the Historicity of Jesus article, where the followers of the atheist "prophet" Richard Dawkins seem to be constantly attempting to promote his assertion that Jesus never existed, despite the fact that I believe several academics who actually know something about the subject have said that the relevant academic community virtually uniformly disagree with him on the subject. Evolution is another such article, and I believe this one probably is as well. I have said before I had serious doubts about whether the ArbCom decision was meant to apply to the first sentence, but seem to find that argument continuing. Therefore, I repeat that I think a clarification of the ruling is probably in everyone's best interests. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And with all of that I have to vehemently disagree. I suspect that by "the relevant academic community" you mean Christian academics. Sorry. that doesn't work, especially when you seem to denigrate another source by giving him that evil label "atheist". Of course ID is pseudo-science. For a rational entity like Wikipedia it's critical that its pseudo-scientific nature be mentioned right up front. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 may himself be one of the best "cases in point" of what some might call "dogmatic atheism" I can imagine, although I am pleased to see he isn't actively blocked for the moment. I suppose there is no point in asking him if he thought a rational editor would ever be bothered to actually look at the Historicity of Jesus talk page where a recent quote from the agnostic Bart Ehrman to the effect that virtually everyone in the field accepts or "believes" Jesus existed, because he obviously did not bother to look. Such atheists often hold their own preconceptions even more zealously and fanatically than many religious zealots, because of their "worship" (for lack of a better word) of what they personally think of as "science" and their inability to even acknowledge that self-described "science" proponents are often less scientific and poorer researchers than those they love to look down on. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a bad faith, irrational and off topic post. Because of that third point, I won't discuss it any more here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Based on my above comments. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Charle's argument is way off base, since using an inflammatory adjective in Wikipedia's voice to a lay audience clearly violates WP:NPOV even if compliant with WP:PSCI. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of policy to adhere. For the proposed lead, I suggest tightening up the wording; i.e. change "has roundly rejected" to "rejects". I don't care if it's called an argument, view, proposition, or whatever, any of those words are fine although I am partial to "proposition". I do agree with John Carter that ArbCom should clarify with respect to the first sentence. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• My name is not Charle and there is nothing inflammatory about the adjective "pseudoscientific". It is a statement of fact not a perjorative term. Once again we do not censor in case some people may be offended. Some people will always be offended.Charles (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Like you? John Carter (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Inferior to present lead. I'm beginning to suspect a topic ban is becoming necessary for Amatulić, given his unwillingness to accept that his interpretation of WP:NPOV is incorrect.—Kww(talk) 04:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  Pot, kettle, black. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• No WP:KETTLE violation at all. Your interpretation is the one that has been specifically repudiated by the arbitration on pseudoscience, by the plain text of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE (a section of WP:NPOV), by WP:VALID (yet another subsection of WP:NPOV, which states that "pseudoscience... should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship") and by our guidelines. There isn't a even a grey area left where your views can live.—Kww(talk) 05:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Waters down the appropriate description of ID and gives wiggle room to the science deniers. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed first sentence is just the teleological argument, and ID is not just the teleological argument. Even "in its own terms" ID claims to be a scientific theory, so the first sentence must say so. It cannot say "ID is the scientific theory that ....", because (by WP rules?) it isn't. It could say "ID claims to be the scientific theory that ..." with something to say that WP thinks it isn't a scientific theory. By then, it might as well have said "ID is the pseudoscientific claim that ...". (BTW "abrogates" seems the wrong word. It means annuls or rescinds - "denies" might be better.) Myrvin (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Partial - think the structure is better but drop the 'as pseudoscience' as that's usually not what was said so comes off as false [WP:LABEL] and [WP:UNDUE] and it's a bit of disconnect in the general thread of saying creationism. Markbassett (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Further weakens the accuracy of the lede. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose we should not adhere and placate to Creationists/IDers on this page as their ideas are ludicrous and, flying in the face of almost every scientific principal know to man. The new wording is also not succinct compared to the wording we have now. Also "Can we end the endless discussion" is a mis-normer. As it was ended several months ago when the lead was changed to the current lead. However, people like to beat a dead horse. NathanWubs (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Although we are all of course gratified to see inherently judgmental and prejudicial comments as the last above, I ask that editor to maybe read WP:CCC and suggest to him that maybe it might be a good idea to look at some directy relevant reference sources that have apparently ignored to date first? John Carter (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Consensus can change, it has not at this point, so your point is moot. Please if you have relevant Pro-Id reliable sources to share with us, please do so. After all I am sure all people here including me would not mind us changing our mind about ID/Creationism if things are backed by relevant reliable sources. NathanWubs (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose rush to straw polling as a possible attempt to game the system based perhaps at least partially on an unconfirmed interpretation of the ArbCom ruling. I asked the former Science Apologist (I forget his new name) about reference sources regarding pseudoscience some time ago. He indicated one work by Randi was among the two best but also that one of those I added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles is the other he thought of as the best in the field. I couldn't find Randi's, but given his particular interests I'm not sure it necessarily deals with this topic. Most rational editors would I think ensure such sources, and others apparently not yet consulted, were examined before rushing to judgment and I am rather surprised at that not being true here. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

John Carter, I think it's unfair to assume that your fellow editors are ignorant of the proposal. Please try to remain civil, even when consensus disagrees with your position. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Because IMHO, IC does not rise status of pseudoscience. A pseudoscience proposes a hypothesis/concept/theory/account, where ID, as the definition shows, does not describe an alternative, but only says that there is some alternative. I would therefore say, if I were writing my own article, that ID is a political/social/religious campaign, not a pseudoscience. But I recognize that this is a minority opinion, and therefore must reluctantly agree with the original wording. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Maybe we've all been sucked in by the claims from the proponents of ID that it is science. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, ID tends to fall into the class of not even wrong, but so long as its proponents package it as a form of science, who are we to set minimum standards? Certainly a lead of "Intelligent design, a proposal so vapid it technically fails to qualify as pseudoscience ..." wouldn't be more satisfactory to those that wish to change the lead.—Kww(talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow!

I never expected such a response! Here I'll briefly respond--in small print to save space--to some assertions on this page that I find unconvincing:

• The term "argument" gives it a status it really doesn't have. (User:I am One of Many) Many terms would work here; view, concept, hypothesis, theory, proposition, proposal have all been rejected by hairsplitting editors. I'm least amenable to theory and hypothesis.
• so it was never rejected as pseudoscience. (User:I am One of Many) That means, "It was rejected because it is pseudoscience." But I'll propose clearer wording.
• This moves too far towards giving equal validity. (User:Charles) I interpret it as showing ID has no validity and that the scientific community will have nothing to do with it.
• Are we going to end up changing every article about a fossil to say that it is x million/circa 6000 years old? (User:Charles) Irrelevant comment; nobody's suggesting anything remotely like that.
• there is nothing inflammatory about the adjective "pseudoscientific". It is a statement of fact not a perjorative [sic] term. (User:Charles) Yes it it. WP: "The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science." SEP: "Throughout its history the word has had a clearly defamatory meaning." CSI: "Pseudoscience is a pejorative term . . ."
• Waters down the appropriate description of ID and gives wiggle room to the science deniers. (User:Nick Thorne) How does "The scientific community has roundly rejected the argument as pseudoscience" do that?
• Further weakens the accuracy of the lede. (User:ArtifexMayhem) What, specifically, is inaccurate?
• [The endless discussion] was ended several months ago when the lead was changed to the current lead. (User:NathanWubs) Not so; check the history.
• Sorry, I can't really make sense of User:TomS TDotO's, User:Kww's, or User:HiLo48's comments.

Sadly, not one person has responded to my points above at 23:10, 8 July 2014; I'll paste in the main ones here: (Added

For me the idea of describing a pseudoscientific topic (not pseudoscience itself) in its own terms comes from common sense and precedent. You can check those 38 articles like I did to see our own precedents as well as the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (in a signed entry by Michael Ruse) and HowStuffWorks, as I've pointed out numerous times.

None of those articles use the word "pseudoscience," either, though I'm fine with using it since many--not just one or two--scientists do call ID pseudoscientific.

Our suggestion to first define the term as its proponents do and then characterize it as pseudoscience fully complies with the spirit and the letter of the text you quoted.

Obviously, the overwhelming consensus is that my proposed text won't fly, but I respectfully request some sound, logical reasons for your rejection. Please explain to me why:

• WP should not follow its own norm wrt pseudosciences as evidenced in 35/38 articles linked to above.
• WP should not be a sober tertiary source like those I've linked to but must clearly telegraph the disgust felt by a small group of editors.

Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)\

Due to a copying an pasting glitch, both here and above you've linked to howstuffworks where you obviously intended to link to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (in a signed entry by Michael Ruse). . . dave souza, talk 08:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Whoops--thanks for catching that; I've changed the links. Yopienso (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume some of that is meant to be sarcasm, but it's impossible to know how much. It's a dangerous approach on the web, where verbal emphasis and body language clues are missing. I've made several comments. That you "can't really make sense of" them is not helpful. I'd be happy to expand, but I have no idea what to. Your whole post is cluttered and bordering on being too long. Can I suggest you rewrite it without the sarcasm please? And perhaps respond to individual posts where they have been made, rather than dumping everything in the one post. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, HiLo48. There is no sarcasm in my post.

I thought it would be handier to answer in one place rather than threading through the discussion. That's why I hyperlinked to each contributor. I realize that made it long, but think it's a good trade-off for convenience. You could be right that it would have been better to insert multiple comments throughout the discussion.

You wrote, And with all of that I have to vehemently disagree. I suspect that by "the relevant academic community" you mean Christian academics. Sorry. that doesn't work, especially when you seem to denigrate another source by giving him that evil label "atheist". Of course ID is pseudo-science. For a rational entity like Wikipedia it's critical that its pseudo-scientific nature be mentioned right up front. I didn't hear User:John Carter arguing that ID is not pseudoscience. I did not understand his label "atheist" as you did. I did think his label "prophet" was denigrating, but then, I found his input unhelpful and ignored it in my response.

You wrote, Oppose Based on my above comments. I don't see how the comments I've just copied make an argument against my proposal; you seemed to be responding to John Carter.

You wrote, Weak Oppose Because IMHO, IC does not rise status of pseudoscience. Yet you had previously said, "Of course ID is pseudo-science." (I assume you meant, "does not rise to the status of.") Your stance is unclear.

You wrote: Maybe we've all been sucked in by the claims from the proponents of ID that it is science. Nothing in my proposal nor in TomS's comment suggests that; how does your comment relate to the discussion? Yopienso (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Amended Yopienso (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You have misread. I did not write 'Weak Oppose. That was another editor. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies--I have just undone that post for that reason and am reworking it. If you prefer that I restore it and strike my error I'll gladly do so. Yopienso (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh rats--I saved it without realizing I'd already pasted in part of my text to rework. I'll make this right. Yopienso (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)  Done

I don't think that this is the place to discuss this sort of thing, but I think that courtesy demands that I explain my point briefly. Pseudosciences like astronomyastrology have a story that they tell about things. In that way, they are like science. Although they differ from science in important ways, their substance is their account of how things happen. ID does not have an account of what happens, where or when, or how. What they talk about is that there is something wrong with evolution, and how they should they should be treated. Therefore it is more like a movement intended to change behavior. Astrologers spend most of their time talking about astrology; they don't spend all of their effort on how astronomy is wrong, or how astrology should be taught in science classes. TomS TDotO (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC) A correspondent has kindly pointed out my embarrassing typo "astronomy". TomS TDotO (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your courtesy and clarification; I agree with your sentiments. How, exactly, do they apply to the wording of the lede? Yopienso (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Dawkins has repeatedly been discussed as an "authority" on the early history of Christianity and the question of the existence of Jesus by editors here at wikipedia, despite having absoutely no qualifications in that matter other than being an opinion leader of the atheist community and someone whose statements other atheists repeat without apparently much thought, which is pretty much the definition of a prophet. The best and most neutral as well as most "academic" definitions probably would be found in reference works which don't treat the topic from either "side," and the Stanford meets that standard quite well, and could serve as a good model. Britannica, with all due respect, is a little too general for purposes such as the definition of a rather involved term. I don't know the other that well. Using the Stanford and similar philosophy reference sources' definitions and those from some of the specialized reference sources I've indicated seems to me the best option, along wit finding out exactly how ArbCom intended their decision to be applied. John Carter (talk)

Glad you like Ruse's Stanford article, it is clear that ID is a variant of creationism. Specifically, "philosophical arguments are central to the thinking of the leader of today's creationists, Berkeley law professor, Phillip Johnson", who, in respects, "just repeated the arguments of the Creation Scientists" but "stressed that the Creation/evolution debate is not just one of science versus religion or good science versus bad science, but rather of conflicting philosophical positions", producing a false equivalence trying to justify teaching creationism in schools. This article did have an approach more on these lines, but to meet recurring complaints it was refocussed more on the agreed point that ID is at best pseudoscientific. . . dave souza, talk 08:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

John Carter, thanks for your helpful comment wrt Stanford and Enc. Brit. The Britannica is the gold standard in general ref encyl. that Wikipedia is measured against; I think the article I linked to may be just the abbreviated free one. (Not sure on that.) I maintain it is unencyclopedic to disparage the topic of an article. I support asking ArbCom to weigh in on this matter. Again, Dave, I don't understand why you're going off-topic about creationism when the question is why we should include the word "pseudoscience" in the first sentence while "real" encyclopedias don't. Yopienso (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Britannica is very good but even it has space constraints which more specialist reference sources at least sometimes don't have to the same degree. That can and sometimes does makeit less exact than some specialized reference sources. And I guess I should make it clear in tge light of some commentsabove that seem to be at least bordering on soapboxing as per WP:SOAPBOX and maybe WP:TE too that so far as I knew this discussion was about the definiton of the term, and even "central" concerns do not necesssarily relate tomatters of the definition of theconcept itself. Who wants to file the request for clarification. I believe at minimum it should include a request regarding the use of the potentially perjorative use of the word pseudoscience and whether that specific word should be included in the first sentence, whether it should be the first meaningful descriptive word in that sentence, and some indications as to what circumstances should prevail to indicate such usage. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't like characterizing ID as a pseudoscience because it it is not like a pseudoscience in an important way. That explains the weakness of my opposition. (However, I do not propose that my opinion is important enough to influence what is written here. That explains my vote to oppose.) TomS TDotO (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(outdent)I have checked a few other highly regarded reference sources on philosophy, but don't see any with specific articles on ID. But both the 2007 Jones Encyclopedia of Religion and the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion do. The article in the first, by William A. Dembski (I have no idea who he is, but he says he is one of the "[l]eading proponents of intelligent design"), who includes 3 of his own works in his 20-item bibliograhy, has as a first sentence "Intelligent design studies features of objects that signal the action of an intelligent cause."Its third sentence talks specifically of proponents of ID, who "purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically". Its fourth sentence concludes ID could "be defined as the science that studies signs of intelligence." The full article, about 2½ page, does not use the word "pseudoscience" once, but under the circumstances that doesn't surprise me.

The EoSaR article by Howard J. Van Till of Calvin College, who sems to have written most of its articles related to creationism, starts "Intelligent Design is the concept that some things―especially some life forms or parts of life forms―must have been assembled (at least for the first time) by the direct action of a non-natural agent." The second of its three sentences relates specifically to "[p]roponents of intelligent design."

In both cases there seems to be differentiation between general ID and specific ID proponents or proposals. The longer has a page-long section "Defining signs of intelligence", a 1 column section "Biological design," and a 1+ column "Intelligent Design and Religion," which includes a statement that ID's main tie to religion is the design argument.

From these 2 it seems to me at least implicitly that ID potentially includes "ET made me in the lab" creationism as well. I'm going to keep checking for other sources.John Carter (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If you do not know who Dembski is, that speaks loudly about your familiarity with ID as a topic. His name appears no less that twenty times in this article. Perhaps if you read past the lead you might understand why the lead refers to ID as pseudoscience.—Kww(talk) 03:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles using the term pseudoscience

There seems to be a part of an argument that suggests that WP articles do not use the term pseudoscience in the first sentence. I don't know what weight such numbers have, but I did a trawl that produced 24 articles that use it in the first sentence, and another 14 that use it in the lead.

Here are the 24: Phrenology; Biorhythms; Crystal healing; Magnetic therapy; Melanin theory; Cryptozoology; Psychic surgery; Terence McKenna#Novelty theory and Timewave Zero; Torsion field (pseudoscience); Ancient astronaut hypothesis; Sun Language Theory; Pyramidology; Indigo children; Leuchter report; Atlantis: The Antediluvian World; Bioresonance therapy; Energo-Chromo-Kinese; The Beginning Was the End; Energy field disturbance; Pseudophysics; Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine); Radium Ore Revigator; Mental literacy; Ontogenetic depth. Also New Chronology (Fomenko) uses 'pseudohistory'.

It seems to me that many more articles could have used a pseudo word in the first sentence, but don't happen to do so, not because editors were following some rule, but because it reads better that way. See Pseudoarchaeology; Homeopathy; Radionics; Quantum mysticism; Dianetics; Erich von Däniken; Baraminology. Plus, Pyramid power and Psychokinesis have 'alleged' in the first sentence followed by 'pseudoscience', while Palmistry and iridology have 'claim' followed by 'pseudoscience'. I wonder how many more articles have words like 'alleged', 'supposed', 'claim' etc. in the first sentence, which the proponents of such ideas would not have "in their own terms".

Also, several articles use 'alternative medicine' in the first sentence, by which editors seem to mean 'pseudo-medicine'. Myrvin (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

But what is the point you want to make? My response so far is "So what?" -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will need to read all of the previous section for this to make sense Roxy. There are people who think that, because 38 articles appear in a page about pseudoscientific articles, and yet many do not have the word 'pseudoscience' in their first sentence, then THIS article should not have 'pseudoscience' in its first sentence. So, I produced a list of 24 articles that are just like that - and a few more that are close. Have fun. Myrvin (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Myrvin, for helpful digging. One small error: pseudoscience is not in the first sentence of Biorhythms. So we've turned up 26 articles plus this one that use the word right off the bat.

As you pointed out, "many more articles could have used a pseudo word in the first sentence, but don't happen to do so." I question your ability to know why they don't. I know of no rule other than common sense that would require us to tell what a topic is before explaining why it is pseudoscientific. This is demonstrably the encyclopedic way to present a topic, as evidenced in the Ency. Brit. and the SEP. Dr. Johnson's droll 18th-century definition of oats as "a grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people," may amuse us today, but there is no place for such cuteness in a quality 21st-century reference work. We cheapen WP when we insert our derogatory opinions into definitions.

The US National Institutes of Health do not equate "alternative medicine" with "pseudoscience." Note the matter-of-fact, non-judgmental approach taken by this reputable source. Yopienso (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As above, the SEP essay is clear from the outset that ID is a subset of creationism, and in particular largely repeats creation science arguments. That's a straightforward matter of fact.. . dave souza, talk 08:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

??? Totally off-topic; my question is not at all about whether or not ID is a subset of creationism, but why WP should not follow the example of reputable tertiary sources in initially defining ID as its proponents do and then explaining how it fails to be scientific. I'm beginning to think it's because Wikipedia is a pseudo-encyclopedia. Yopienso (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

An extensive discussion on this talk page culminated in April with agreement on revisions to the lead, changing the opening from "Intelligent design (ID)[1] is a form of creationism,[2][3] the belief that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," presented by its proponents as a scientific theory.[1] to "Intelligent design (ID)[1] is the pseudoscientific theory[2][3] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Proponents argue..."[2]. . . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then perhaps you shouldn't pseudo-participate? You have absolutely no consensus for your proposed change, that much was made really obvious in the above thread. Time to drop the stick. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm truly participating, Gaba, and not insisting on incorporating into the article what I see as the appropriate wording. I'm asking my fellow editors to explain why we should not follow the lead of reputable tertiary sources. If you missed it, I wrote this under the edit summary "I will graciously defer to the consensus, but am involved enough to ask for clearer reasons, please":

Obviously, the overwhelming consensus is that my proposed text won't fly, but I respectfully request some sound, logical reasons for your rejection. Please explain to me why:

• WP should not follow its own norm wrt pseudosciences as evidenced in 35/38 articles linked to above.
• WP should not be a sober tertiary source like those I've linked to but must clearly telegraph the disgust felt by a small group of editors.

Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sincerely, Yopienso (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps phrasing it as a wife-beating question is why people don't think you are being serious. Describing pseudoscience as pseudoscience is certainly the norm: being the norm doesn't require 100% adherence. Describing pseudoscience as pseudoscience also doesn't prevent us from being a sober tertiary source. Perhaps the primary distinction isn't that they are "sober", but that they are commercial. A commercially supported source has to worry about offending people that might otherwise buy their product. We don't.—Kww(talk) 18:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Kww, for giving a reasonable answer to my question. Dave avoids the question; Gaba and Myrvin just tell me to be quiet and go away.

I don't see how I'm falling into the wife-beating fallacy by contrasting our approach with that of sources that are held in higher regard by academics.

I disagree with your opinion of why EB and SEP use more objective language than WP wrt to ID, but I greatly appreciate your sharing it. (My opinion is that they are written in an academic register by experts while this article in WP is crowd-sourced by people who aim to debunk rather than describe.) I hope other editors will candidly share their reasons. Yopienso (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I need to scale back the "academic register" bit, which applies only to SEP. EB is for a general audience and HSW is even more casual and not necessarily written by experts. I find all three adopt an objective tone, while WP adopts a dismissive tone.

Please, fellow editors, share your opinions on why we should not follow those examples. My concern is not to refute your opinions but to hear them. Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yopienso, my understanding of policy and opinion of the right approach is that we have to be clear from the outset that this is a minority religious view that lacks any credence in science. SEP achieves this in an essay, rather than the brief definition we're seeking for the lead, by showing ID in the context of its creationist predecessors. As discussed in April, introducing ID as pseudoscience rather than creationism also works well. I've certainly not ruled out other approaches to the same end, but in each case the wording has to be considered carefully. . dave souza, talk 20:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Yopienso (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite right on the Biorhythms. It still leaves a lot that were missed when the WP precedence argument was used. Does this mean we can move away from WP precedence? I don't think the Johnson reference helps your case. He might have been deadly serious. The argument also suggests that WP should never say anything is pseudoscience, since it would be 'derogatory' wherever it goes. Myrvin (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer above Myrvin. I was templated once for categorising Occult as pseudoscience, which surprised me, and use of the Pseudoscience Category has been substantially altered since. It is a difficult area, as true believers in whatever brand of woo don't like the label, but it certainly belongs in this article. Remember that we are obliged to frame articles from a mainstream scientific pov, and are under the ARBCOM discretionary sanctions ruling on pseudoscience. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd agree that Occult isn't pseudoscience, as it's clear in that article that it's an alternative based on mystical "inner natures" with no claims to be science. Both creation science and ID have persistently been presented as science, particularly with the aim of getting these religious views taught in science classrooms. That's what makes ID pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 10:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Myrvin, I don't care to move away from the WP precedence argument; many or our articles do not call the topic pseudoscientific in the first sentence, and there is no compelling reason why this one should. The example of real encyclopedias that do not do that compels me to believe a good encyclopedia should not do that.

Boswell quotes Johnson thusly: "Why, I own, that by my definition of oats I meant to vex them [the Scotch]." That is precisely the attitude I perceive in the insistence of defining ID as "the pseudoscientific view that . . . " Yopienso (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This latest version of your argument can't work both ways. Earlier, you were using WP precedence to argue a case for not using PS in the first sentence (because other articles don't do it, we shouldn't). Now there are counter-precedents you say precedence is NOT a good reason for doing so. (I think Sam was joking to Boswell, not when he wrote the def.) I think you are only left with your "real" encyclopedias (all two of them). I hope this isn't a No true Scotsman argument: WP isn't a real one because it uses 'pseudoscientific' in the first sentence. Myrvin (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me (and Johnson, too--read Boswell for context). I'm still saying precedence IS a good thing to follow--many articles do NOT slam the topic in the first sentence.

There are lots of reasons why WP is a wanna-be. Academics do not recognize WP as a RS, though many admit it is a useful mine for sources. Yopienso (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Gaba is right. It's time to drop the stick. Myrvin (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, are we already in the "WP sucks" fase? Time to move on then. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

He is right although it seems to me the person who should "drop the stick" is the person who seemed to base this whole section on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I believe there is more than suffiient basis for a request for clarification. Who wants to file it? John Carter (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oo, is that me? I didn't try to argue that because 38 articles didn't do what this one does, then this one shouldn't. I did counter it though. Let's do WP:Ignore all precedent and move on. Myrvin (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Who would want to file a request for clarification from ArbCom, and what matters should be included? I believe I have already identified my own concerns above. Are there any others that should also be addressed? John Carter (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's your suggestion. You tell us what needs clarifying. I don't think anything needs clarification. Are you sure you'e not just forum shopping? HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, if you ever read the comments of others you would see others agreed to request clarification. I was asking them. You might also look above and see that such comments as yours, which have nothing productive in them and violate WP:TE and/or WP:DE are potentially grounds for your being sanctioned again.John Carter (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Threats again, eh? That's not clever debating. I stand by everything I say. It did just "happen" to be you who brought this here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in asking ArbCom if WP even has "its own voice," or if, as a tertiary source, it merely repeats what RSs say. My interpretation of WP:NPOV is that WP has no voice of its own. I don't see how this article complies with the following:

• WP:YESPOV: " A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.
• WP:IMPARTIAL:"The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."

It is the disparaging tone evident on the talk page and leaking into the article that I wish to avoid. It is the impartial tone of EB, SEP, and HSW that I wish to emulate. Yopienso (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else? John Carter (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• WP:YESPOV: "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view."
• WP:GEVAL: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity".
• WP:PSCI: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such."

Clarity on these points should not be mistaken for a disparaging tone: obviously the best way of acheiving all these aspects of policy is open to discussion and consideration. . dave souza, talk 20:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Good points, to which I would request clarification regarding whether statements made in academically well-regarded reference sources directly related to the topic, including those I've included above and on the list of articles from encyclopedias of pseudoscience at Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles could or should be used to help determine such matters, and, if possible, how. Also, personally, I would inquire about possibly special exceptions in the cases of potentially damaging or dangerous or counterproductive medical, legal, and/or financial pseudoscience, although I don't know if either of the latter two really exist. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The "how" is talk page discussion, with sourced proposals for improvement: why not? . . dave souza, talk 21:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Dave. Wrt to GEVAL, we must remember that the topic of this article is a minority view, so it must be fully explained. My approach would be to first summarize the DI's answers to QUESTIONS ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN on this page, and then, after giving a history of the term, explain why mainstream science discounts ID. My understanding is that you might do something similar after first making clear that the whole proposition is pseudoscience. Because such a large minority of Americans are unconvinced of evolution, it seems to me that immediately calling ID PS would be a turn-off, whereas if the topic were first defined in its own terms and then examined with a scientific lens, there would be more of a chance they would keep reading. And learn! It might also reduce discussion on and tinkering with the lede.

Perhaps ArbCom could give us the proper balance on the guidelines we each cited as they apply to this article.

For comparison's sake, I've looked up the article as it was the day it was featured on the front page. Yopienso (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(e-c)@Dave:Only problem there might be whichever page here (I freely admit I never really checked on a lot of them) most directly relates to the article in one of the pseudoscience encyclopedia article on Lourdes. Really emotionally loaded discussions like that one could lead to really long sanctions lists and interminable arguments and edit wars. I've not yet myself had the guts to take that one on, and if nothing else some sort of indicators from how to avoid such potential bloodbaths, maybe even "try binding mediation comparatively early," might be useful. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso I think this article is unrecoverably biased mitigated by that being obvious and seems about the best it will get, but will offer two Wikipedia reasons of just show me the cites or do not use it type to not use pseudoscience at the lead:

• WP:UNDUE - top line use of that term is giving it undue weight as it is not prominent or common. AAAS and Kitz say 'not science', NCSE and numerous books say 'creationism'. Doing search counts for 'intelligent design' + creationism versus 'intelligent design' + pseudoscience comes out at google 959K:147K and at bing with 645K:69K. And the article sections are repeatedly talking religion or creationist groups, so it is not summarizing major portion of the article content.
• WP:LABEL - guidance says for value-laden labels "Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt." There is only cite of a teachers group, so again just do not have cites to justify putting the label in.

Markbassett (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ooooh, Google. There's a carefully thought out scathing refutation if I've ever seen one.—Kww(talk) 02:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Markbassett - for as long as the proponents of ID claim that it's scientific (also mentioned in the lead), it's critical that the article highlights the fact that it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Off topic speculation about string theory and multiverses
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That last is an interesting point but raises several questions. One is the usage of the terms "fringe science" and "pseudoscience" and other related terms. I remember how in recent books Brian Greene said bot string theory nor the multiverse theory have any real evidence to support them, just like this. Do they deserve to be described by the same terms? Dawkins has repeatedly said one of the motivations for his life's wor was to indicate the non-existence of deity. Should his I believe clearly declared motivations be given similar attention in content to his at best fringe meme theory and should the question of the "scientific" nature of that proposal also be highlighted? Also, I remember reading one of the early motivations for the proposers of multiversial theory was to try to get around the Big Bang and its creationist possibilities. How much attention should that get here? And, honestly, should we look for and describe the stated core beliefs of all scientists or fringe scientists elsewhere, giving particular attention to the sometimes inflammatory and prejudicial claimsof those who disagree with them on unprovable postulates? John Carter (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC) John, I wouldn't try to sell the point with anything about Dawkins. (We both know that he's more polemic rather than an intellectually honest scholar when he ventures from biology to philosophy - he can't quite admit that he's using circular reasoning, "cranes supported by cranes" instead of a "skyhook", to deal with infinite regress.) That's a rat hole. ID, even as folks as diverse as John Polkinghorne or William Paley understand it, is not science. It's at a different philosophical place (like art or ethics are) than science. 70.109.183.128 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC) While some people have called string theory pseudoscience, a more sophisticated approach to the demarcation problem will generally label it protoscience or something of the sort. There's an important difference which goes beyond the scope of what we can and should discuss here. Guettarda (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC) For our purposes however the fact that string theory has been called pseudoscience is enough. Also, if you read some of the comments above, intelligent, design, could qualify as a protoscience as well.John Carter (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC) No, it's not good enough. Reliable scholarly sources don't generally consider string theory pseudoscience. Non-expert blog posts aren't good enough. Similarly, while a few people have tried to argue that ID should be considered protoscience, those arguments tend to be made in blog posts, not scholarly works looking at the demarcation problem. When people argue about the demarcation problem, ID used is an example of obvious pseudoscience while discussing more arguable examples like alchemy. Guettarda (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC) G, Lee Smolin and Peter Woit (and some others that agree with these physicists) do consider string theory and multiverse cosmology as pseudoscience. And they write books and blogs and are reliable and scholarly. I consider string theory and M theory as protoscience or nascent science (which was the state of general relativity until the Eddington solar eclipse expedition), but it could eventually be discarded as "science" if it never becomes falsifiable. 70.109.177.95 (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC) You seem to have a pronounced inability to address the topic of this thread, and such irrelevant commentary is contrary to WP:TPG, and, as it were, potentially "not good enough" to perhaps avoid sanctions on this page. Please make somevisible attempt to stay on topic. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Wow dude. You're quite something. You go off on a tangent about string theory and pointless speculation about protoscience. All I did was indulge your rather pointless diversions. Guettarda (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a good discussion (the whole Smolin thing about what science is contained in string theory, as well as multiverse cosmology), but outa the scope here. I agree with you, G, about that. 70.109.183.128 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a note about "not science": since intelligent design claims to be science, calling it "not science" is, in essence, identical to calling it pseudoscience. Calling it creationism, on the other hand, is not the same as call it pseudoscience, but neither is it different. Those labels are not orthogonal. Guettarda (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.John Carter (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

When it is understood as and directed toward biology textbooks, it's pseudoscience. When it's not, it's not. In both cases, ID is "not real science". The problem with this lead, and with the chronic bias of the article is that it makes Wikipedia look bad because it nakedly betrays (or portrays) that bias. That's what you guys just don't get. It's not necessary (to get the necessary information across to the reader) and it unmistakeably sets out the tone that Wikipedia takes a position against Intelligent design when it doesn't have to do that. And we can still expose all of the bad people and their bad actions and the bad biology and we can clearly identify those that say ID is pseudoscience and quote them. The article, without question, is identifying something that some reputable authors have used as a term and write about it authoritatively say is "not science" as "false science", which is decidedly "bad science" (The Harvard astronomy professor emeritus differentiates labels with "small 'i' small 'd'"). The lede in this article more clearly takes the position that "ID is pseudoscience" than does the lede of the Adolf Hitler article state that "Hitler was bad".

Not science is not the same as pseudoscience. 70.109.183.128 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Not science", when portrayed as science is pseudoscience. And ID is portrayed as science. That is, quite simply, the reason it exists. Guettarda (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not portrayed as science by every significant author that has written of the term. You are not being intellectually honest about this. 70.109.183.128 (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course it isn't always portrayed as science. It's generally portrayed as non-science, pseudoscience, or creationism by significant authors. Guettarda (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

And non-science is not the same as pseudoscience. Yet the article unequivocally equates ID to pseudoscience and does not allow any representation of it as non-science. Still skirting around the point (but at least not denying it at this time). 70.109.183.128 (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It's non-science. But ID's proponents claim it's science, and persistently push for it to be taught in schools as part of science. So, our options are non-science, pseudoscience, or science. The last one is bullshit. Please pick from the first two. I don't really care. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Not all writers, especially when you consider the historical use of the term (long before there ever was such a thing called the Discovery Institute) claim that it's science. But the article immediately and unequivocally identifies it as false science. Just do the Wikipedia thing with it. State what the concept (or "view" or "argument" or whatever) is, then show what different sources say about it. Attribute the sources. Do it the Wikipedia way and stop embarrassing the project. 70.109.177.95 (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are more options that just science, non-science and pseudoscience. To begin with, the whole demarcation only comes into play when something claims to be science. Literature and theology are non-science which don't purport to be science. Anthropology spans the divide between science and non-science. Among things which are presented as science, we have several options. Pigliucci [3] (p. 18) presents a continuum from established science to soft science to proto/quasi-science to pseudoscience. And ID (like astrology and HIV denialism) are given as examplars of pseudoscience.

The argument here, such as it is, is whether we should approach the arbcomm to rule whether something that is given as an exemplar of what pseudoscience is, should be called pseudoscience. It's an absurd question. Guettarda (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Um I believe the last part of the above comment raises several dubious assertions, possibly, to the point of making the comment itself both absurd and inaccurate. To. my eyes, as the person who started the thread, the concern was about using the word "pseudoscience" as the first significant descriptive word in the article. Other concerns since expressed relate to using the word pseudoscience at all, and phrasing the initial description of a topic. Questions related specifically to the word psedoscience, and by extension similar terms, relate to how we should determine when such descriptions should be used. That ultimately relates to how we and the world at large should define the word science as well. A last final concern relates to how early to introduce in the text comments from outside, often opposing, views characterizing,often negatively, the motivations of proponents and possibly opponents of a given thesis.John Carter (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

And I presented a reliable, scholarly source that addresses the concern pretty directly. And somehow I did it without invoking string theory, Bart Ehrman, or the historicity of Jesus. You should try staying on topic. If you want to dismiss Pigliucci out of hand, you still need to cite sources. The mere fact that you admit to knowing nothing of ID (you admitted to not knowing who Dembski is) or the content of this article beyond the opening paragraph (again, Dembski is mentioned 55 times on the article page, 19 times in the main text) means that you are in no position to dismiss the opinions of experts (or even reasonably informed amateurs). Please don't substitute your opinion for reliable sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

And this thread as per the title and opening comment is about what to include in a request for clarification to ArbCom about the pseudoscience case. Please try to understand that. There honestly have not been and will not be at least from me any changes to the article proposed until that request is dealt with. Such has I believe been said or at least strongly implied several times already. Please do the admin asked to review this a favor by adding any comments not related to that matter in some other thread. If several days pass without response from him, or a statement that he chooses not to do so, I will ask another admin and so on until one does so. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a point to this thread? An improvement on the article being proposed? Anything? The pseudoscience discussion was settled above, the consensus is that the word stays in the article. If an editor wants to ask Arbcom whatever just please go and do it. Wikipedia is not a forum. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Gaba Umm... the start of thread says it: going to ArbCom for closure. I think Yopienso indicated interest in doing it -- maybe as a way to resolve whether the wiki should separate the definition from commentary, and/or if it is being a forum pushing "pseudoscience" term out of proportion to relative prominence so seeming contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:YESPOV, WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE and WP:LABEL (show the cites or do not use it). Maybe also get pointed to the words wiki suggests as neutral rather than the struggles with theory, view, or argument. Meh, que sera sera. Markbassett (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You understand my interest perfectly, Markbassett. But I see this is getting out of hand and the best thing to do is leave the lede alone and move on. If I were writing the article by myself, it would be much different, but I'll take Ben Franklin's stance wrt to the final product of the Constitutional Convention, as quoted on my user page. Besides, I'm flying out to distant parts tomorrow. Thanks to those who made helpful comments. Yopienso (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I requested an uninvolved admin to review the thread on Saturday for summary in a presentation to ArbCo for clarification. Waiting for his response. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arb Com clarification

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Pseudoscience. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thesis and theories and bias

I believe this article seems to do a very poor job in differentiating between the thesis of intelligent design and the theories of intelligent design. There are I think perhaps several other areas of what might be called "theoretical biology," such as parts of astrobiology, which also have a total lack of any hard evidence to indicate that they even have something real to study, in that case alien life. Also, again theoretically, if we were to find any alien life, and it bore some indication of "engineering" to outside eyes, that would relate to ID. There does not seem at least to my eyes any sort of good reason beyond simple name-calling to describe this particular thesis by such terms when it does not meet any criteria not also met by other theses and theories which we do not apply such terms, and I do not believe prejudicial and selective labelling by opponents is sufficient basis for us to use such terms. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)