Talk:Evolutionary argument against naturalism/Archive 2

Ruse

But since you point this out I'd think about cutting or deleting the passage on Ruse. I reckon there have been around 40 peer reviewed articles on EAAN and about 12 have been answered by Plantinga. Many of them were written by famous philosophers like Fodor, Alston, Merricks and O'Connor. And among them were also philosophers of science and biology like Ramsey to whom Plantinga responded. Ruse contribution doesn't stand out in those ranks and hasn't been answered by Plantinga (or anyone else afaik). I think we could replace him with Tooley 2008 to get a more recent and better known article. Also Tooleys answer is a lot more penetrating and more to the point which could be interesting for the readers. What's your opinion on this?--Student of philosophy

1. If you want to get 'discussion' of an issue for which you are templating the article, then don't stick it in the middle of a thread on an unrelated issue.
2. Ruse is one of the more prominent philosophers of science working on the evo/creo issue -- so is a relevant view to discussing an argument, from a creationist philosopher, on why evolution is a 'refuter' for philosophical naturalism.
3. From what I can tell, there's been considerable back-and-forth on this and/or related issues between Ruse & Plantinga.
4. If you want to include other critical discussion of the EAAN, as well as or instead of existing material, then you're free to propose them (with full citation, proposed text and argument for their prominence)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I'd be interested in the back and forth between the two since Ruse seems to be taking EAAN as an argument against evolution. Can you give any source for this?
2. It may be that Ruse is famous for his work in the evo/crea debate but I don't see how this would make him stand out among the people who have answered Plantingas argument. If it is for his competence in philosophy of science, then I think there are more prominent and challenging answers available. Right now it seems like his answer is more notable than Fodors, Alstons, Tooleys (which is not mentioned at all) and Merricks which is misleading.--Student of philosophy (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

1. No, I can't. I've just seen it alluded to in reading up on the matter.
2. "If you want to include other critical discussion of the EAAN, as well as or instead of existing material, then you're free to propose them (with full citation, proposed text and argument for their prominence)"

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately truth is not enough for wikipedia, so you'll have to come up with sources to justify the prominent position and space given to Ruse while the central publication on EAAN including Merrick, Fodor, Alston and others is that short. If you can't provide them please cut down the passage yourself, since you seem to know him.--Student of philosophy (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ummm .... NO! You have made the accusation of WP:UNDUE weight, so it is up to you to support that accusation. The WP:BURDEN is on the adding-editor to ensure that material added is verifiable. Once that burden has been met, the burden is on the accuser to prove that the material is in violation of some other policy, if they want the material removed thereafter. (See also WP:AGF.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"The WP:BURDEN is on the adding-editor to ensure that material added is verifiable. Once that burden has been met, the burden is on the accuser to prove that the material is in violation of some other policy, if they want the material removed thereafter. (See also WP:AGF.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)" You added the passage without any discussion, so you've never met the burden of the adding-editor. Else everybody could just add anything and then claim that the burden of proof is now on the one who wants to remove it. --Student of philosophy (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:BURDEN before making such SPECIOUS statements. The burden under that policy is to ensure that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I provided such "inline citation[s]", so I have met that burden. The burden is now upon you to provide evidence of violation of WP:UNDUE. Put up or shut up! Given your bad-faith, transparently tendentious claims, you have abraded away all assumption of good faith. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Calm down Hrafn. This is not a war (even if you'd like to make it part of the ID-evo war). By adding a passage to the article that is as long as all the essays in the central publication on EAAN together, you make an important claim. Namely the claim that Ruse is more important than any of those essays individually. You failed to provide a source for that important claim. Thus you failed to meet that burden. My undue tag was just a kind way to call this to your attention.--Student of philosophy (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Off topic discussion about the merit of the argument and styles of conversation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anyone who has to deal with your tendentious nonsense is going to get frustrated sooner or later. And Hrafn is right, the onus is on you to make the case that your tag is warranted. Ruse appears to be calling "bullshit" on the whole game, which certainly has more real-world value than many of the other arguments. But as it stands, just about every remaining section could be tagged as {{undue}}. Why one and not the others is the case to be made. Or better yet, do something to improve the article. For someone who claims to be an expert, it should be far easier to improve the article than it would be to add tens of thousand bytes of tendentious arguments. Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC) "17. Summarised, unless otherwised referenced, from the review by John F Post" If you want to expand from the full original, then you're welcome to do so. I work from the materials I have to hand. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC) You guys chose ideas that can barely be defended even by a very clever person. Of course it's frustrating to defend such ideas. As for calling EAAN bullshit, it makes your POV clear once again and with it the value of your arguments.--81.62.33.6 (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC) You know, it's possible to characterise someone's actions without wholeheartedly embracing those actions. There's also a difference between "calling bullshit" (an Americanism I have taken a liking to) and "calling [something] bullshit". EAAN is an interesting argument. But it's built on faulty propositions. Arguing the merits of an argument that's built on straw can be an amusing, albeit silly, diversion. But someone needs to tell people that they should stop playing the fool and get back to work. Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated content in the Ruse passage

There are two passages in the Ruse text that I can't relate to EAAN. Those are the two passages:

"In a chapter titled 'The New Creationism: Its Philosophical Dimension', in The Cultures of Creationism, philosopher of science Michael Ruse discusses Phillip E. Johnson, Michael Behe and Alvin Plantinga as "the more sophisticated proponents" of creationism's increased philosophical orientation.[22] Ruse states that Plantinga "pushes the science-religion conflict further than Johnson",[23]"

This are interesting personal claims of Ruse about Plantinga but don't seem related to EAAN in any way. If this somehow should be related to EAAN, then please an non OR source that will not fail WP:V. This means a text ist needed.

"To be honest even if Plantinga's argument worked, I would still want to know where theism ends (and what form theism must take) and where science can take over. Is it the case that evolution necessarily cannot function, or it is merely false and in another God-created world it might have held in some way — and if so, in what way? Plantinga has certainly not shown that theist must be a creationist, even though his own form of theism is creationism"

It seems that this passage is out of context. The argument is explicity not directed to deny evolution or support creationism, so Ruse must be arguing about some other argument. Is he talking about Plantingas essay on methodological naturalism? Ruses passage is completely out of context. --Student of philosophy (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The "relation[ship] to EAAN" was answered in #Tendentious edits BEFORE this subsection was created. This section is therefore nothing more than tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you stop typing everything in bold text? Here is your answer to this issue: "it is Ruse's conclusion in analysing EAAN". Thanks for making this claim, but could you back it up with a source and more information? It seems odd that Ruse claims plantinga didn't provide a reason for creationism if EAAN obviously doesn't attempt to do so. My guess is that Ruse discusses more than EAAN. --Student of philosophy (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is EAAN compatible with TE and with ID?

In the attempt to link EAAN to ID the claim was made that EAAN has only been put forward by ID adherents. No source for this claim was given and if one has a look at the general claim of EAAN, then this is clearly false as this short passage from the above discussion (considered off topic by Guettarda) shows:

""It is not used by Theistic Evolutionists to support Theistic Evolution positions" (by Hrafn) Of course it is, I'm using it. C.S.Lewis was using it and he adopted theistic evolution. Victor Reppert is using it. As shown several times theistic evolutionists even have an advantage in using the argument since evolution is assumed in the argument."

Plantinga himself stated that evolution and theism work well together and lead to no such contradiction as EAAN demonstrates for evolution and naturalism--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this claim of compatibility between EAAN & TE needs to be put into context of Plantinga's writings on related subjects. He is widely discussed (e.g. by Beckwith at pp106-107 in Darwin's Nemesis) as putting forward the idea that a Naturalistic Epistemology makes acceptance of Evolution the more likely conclusion, whereas an acceptance of a non-naturalist (e.g. Theistic) one makes acceptance of some form of antinaturalism (e.g. creationism/ID) more likely.

This, taken in conjunction with EAAN, would appear to lead to some rather odd conclusions:

1. Evolution → Theism (via EAAN) → Antinaturalism (ID/Creationism) (= ~Evolution)
2. Philosophical Naturalism → Evolution → Theism (= ~Philosophical Naturalism, via EAAN)

The first point makes the claim of the compatibility of EAAN & TE more than a little questionable. While I'm not suggesting that the above WP:OR conclusions should be included in the article, I am suggesting that Plantinga's claims that EAAN is compatible with TE need to be placed in the context of his wider writings against Evolution and Methodological Naturalism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What I don't see is how antinaturalism leads to ID/creationism. Do you understand creationism as every theory that involves god at some point? How is it then to be distinguished from theism? I think antinaturalism without ID or creationism is quite popular and becoming more and more so. With my understanding of antinaturalism EAAN leads to plausible conclusions:

1. Evolution → Theism (via EAAN) → Antinaturalism (=the idea that there are supernatural things)
2. Philosophical Naturalism → Evolution → skepticism → maybe theism (entails denial of naturalism)

I don't understand exactly what is meant by naturalistic epistemology in your statement. Fales for example interprets Plantingas epistemology as a naturalistic epistemology relying on a theistic ontology (see his essay in Beilby).

Could you give me an example for his writings against evolution? I've never encountered any anti-evolution claim in his work so far and I'd be interested to read about it. --194.124.140.39 (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See this: "First, I shall argue that the theory of evolution is by no means religiously or theologically neutral. Second, I want to ask how we Christians should in fact think about evolution; how probable is it, all things considered, that the Grand Evolutionary Hypothesis is true? And third, I want to make a remark about how, as I see it, our intellectuals and academics should serve us, the Christian community, in this area." Note the date, before Johnson and the DI took up ID, and his statement that "Returning to methodological naturalism, if indeed natural science is essentially restricted in this way, if such a restriction is a part of the very essence of science, then what we need here, of course, is not natural science, but a broader inquiry that can include all that we know, including the truths that God has created life on earth and could have done it in many different ways. "Unnatural Science," "Creation Science," "Theistic Science"-call it what you will: what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Christian point of view. What we need is a scientific account of life that isn't restricted by that methodological naturalism." As you may know, creation science was relabelled as intelligent design, and the statement is very close to Johnson's ideas of theistic realism. . . dave souza, talk 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think everybody, intelligent design adherent, theistic evolution adherents and even atheists would agree to this: "theory of evolution is by no means religiously or theologically neutral". The theory of evolution has implications for theology without any doubt (e.g. for the understanding of genesis). It seems you understand this sentence as "the theory of evolution is anti-religion" or something along these lines. How is this reading warranted, especially since Plantinga seems to be open to theistic evolution and thinks it doesn't have the same problems as naturalism?

"Returning to methodological naturalism, if indeed natural science is essentially restricted in this way, if such a restriction is a part of the very essence of science, then what we need here, of course, is not natural science, but a broader inquiry that can include all that we know, including the truths that God has created life on earth and could have done it in many different ways." This also seems self-evidently true for theist and atheist alike. If we don't want to rule out personal explanations for the universe or the existence of life by definition and at the same time adopt methodological naturalism (as most do), then we also need a broader inquiry if we want to find out about personal explanations. If personal explanations are logically possible, then we need a broader inquiry than science (restricted by methodological naturalism) to find out whether personal explanations for the universe or life are true. This is pretty much a truism and I don't see how this is directed against evolution in any way. And it's really odd to call Plantinga a ID-proponent because of a heavily interpreted passage given the influential nature and sheer amount of his work in epistemology, philosophy of religion and metaphysics of modality. Or is there anything else directed against evolution by Plantinga? I will read the essay you linked later, thanks for the link.--194.124.140.39 (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Creation science is a renamed anti-evolution, and holds that "a broader inquiry than science (restricted by methodological naturalism)" can be called science for the purposes of teaching religious views in science classrooms. Intelligent design does exactly the same, and so it's unsurprising that they had Plantinga on their platform to speak against science as it's defined by scientists and by the US courts. There's a pretty obvious connection, not least in footnote 13 where Plantinga refers the reader to the forerunners of ID Charles Thaxton and Michael Denton for evidence that Darwin's theory is "improbable". Which is no doubt the sort of thing that Ruse noticed. . dave souza, talk 13:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This broader inquiry than science (restricted by methodological naturalism) is taught at schools and universities in the form of philosophy. So Plantingas conclusion seems to match his professional career in philosophy of religion. Did he suggest that this new inquiry should be labeled science again and be taught at school in biology or anything along these lines? The way I see it his statements are uncontroversial and any atheist who has seriously considered a personal cause for the universe has engaged in the broader inquiry than science. I can see why this might be interesting for adherents of intelligent design who wish to replace science with this broader inquiry but it seems in itself pretty neutral. Is this really enough to call Plantinga an "advocate of intelligent design"? This essay is nothing but a fractional amount of his impressive work in philosophy and isn't event clearly supporting original ID ideas. It seems very far-fetched in my opinion. The problem is that there have been several cases where the ID label has been abused to disqualify someone (and with him his work). So even the loosest contact to anything ID related is a risk for a scientist or especially philosopher (see for example David Chalmers or Henry Stapp). This kind of behavior is cleary deeply opposed to rationality or science and has to be avoided. This is why in my opinion someone should only be labeled an advocate of intelligent design if he openly embraces ideas exclusive to the ID-movement (and not just theism or the idea that naturalism is self-defeating).

Maybe Plantingas endorsement (see Hrafns text) could shed some light on the matter.

As for your claim about Ruse: "Which is no doubt the sort of thing that Ruse noticed.". This is exactly what I suspect. But this would cut any relation between EAAN and ID since Plantingas essay on "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible" is a different text than EAAN.--Student of philosophy (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The anon IP {perhaps yourself?) said "Could you give me an example for his writings against evolution? I've never encountered any anti-evolution claim in his work so far and I'd be interested to read about it. --194.124.140.39 (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)" and this example was in response to that request. There are reviews of that article online which note its apparent endorsement of creation science, something which essentially contradicts theistic evolution by denying the legitimacy of science that doesn't accept supernatural explanations. Get it? . . dave souza, talk 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if it's just that article (he introduced his assessment of the situation with First, let me remind you once more that I am no expert in this area.), then obviously Plantinga cannot be called an advocate of ID since he explicitly excludes his views on evolution/creation from his professional work (where he claims several time that god could have used evolution to create the world.). He may be sympathetic to ID on a personal level (but ever since this article was published he made clear that theistic evolution is an option for christians, as a matter of fact he even mentioned it in this article), but he's clearly not an advocate of intelligent design. It's also obvious now that he has never given a philosophical argument supporting ideas exclusively endorsed by ID since nothing else has been put forward to support the claim that Plantinga "supports" ID. What then of Ruse's argument? It seems there are good reasons for why Ruse remained the only one explicitly labeling Plantinga "one of the more sophisticated proponents of ID". This behavior seems intellectually dishonest (I doubt that a claim like Ruse's would have any chance of being published in a peer reviewed journal.) Accordingly I'd suggest to cut any mentioning of ID in this article and only include sources that are peer reviewed to guarantee a NPOV. --Student of philosophy (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Or is there anything else directed against evolution by Plantinga?"

I have found the source for the comments attributed to Plantinga in my comment above. It is in Plantinga's widely-cited When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible, which is part of a 'conversation' of articles contained in an issue of Christian Scholar's Review. They were reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics -- and all the articles are linked to from that wikilink.

I would also note that the latest edition of Johnson' polemic anti-evolution screed Darwin on Trial contained an endorsement from Plantinga (though I've yet to track down the exact contents of that endorsement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1. "then obviously Plantinga cannot be called an advocate of ID" -- whether his motivation for advocating ID is professional or personal (even were it possible to distinguish between the two, when the basis for the opposition is theological), is irrelevant to the fact that Plantinga is an "advocate of ID"
2. "he explicitly excludes his views on evolution/creation from his professional work" -- given that the piece was published in Christian Scholar's Review, not some local church newsletter, and responded to in CSR by Howard J. Van Till & Ernan McMullin, I think it is reasonable to claim that it was written in a professional, rather than a personal, capacity.
3. "since nothing else has been put forward to support the claim that Plantinga 'supports' ID." YES IT BLOODY WELL HAS BEEN!:
   • The 6 points I made in Talk:Evolutionary argument against naturalism/Archive 01#Why is this linked to creationism or ID? under the heading of "Plantinga is a long-standing supporter of the ID movement"
   • "Then why do ID advocates such as Francis J. Beckwith (in Darwin's Nemesis) and J. P. Moreland (in Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue) cite the EAAN in defence of their positions"
   • "the latest edition of Johnson' polemic anti-evolution screed Darwin on Trial contained an endorsement from Plantinga"
   • (I'm sure more could be found, but see little point in doing so, given Student of philosophy's continual attempts to ignore/side-step the existing evidence.)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything you mentioned has been refuted and you still keep mentioning it. If you were not a real person I would find this comical. Your "evidence" is of this sort:

• Plantinga is a member of the ISCID Interesting evidence for EAAN being about ID or supporting ID. I guess "War of the Worlds" with Tom Cruise is a movie supporting/about scientology, right?
• Plantinga was a participant of the controversial 'Nature of Nature' conference sponsored by the Michael Polanyi Center & the Discovery Institute. What did he say? Any idea? Participating at a conference hardly makes anyone a supporter of the committee that organised it. Or else Hitchens were an enthusiastic christian. And of course EAAN and its conclusion is interesting for anybody rejecting naturalism. So obviously those people might be interested in EAAN.
• He presented the EAAN at the 1997 'The Search for Truth' ID conference. EAAN is an interesting argument for anybody opposed to naturalism. Why shouldn't he present it there?
• He presented at the ID conference in May 2001 at Calvin College. EAAN is an interesting argument for anybody opposed to naturalism. Why shouldn't he present it there?

It seems the only chance you have left is the following sources:

• In The Creationists (p398, Extended Ed.) Numbers cites (ft55, p556) Plantinga's "Methodological Naturalism?", Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (September 1997) 143-54, as evidence of his involvement in ID.
• the latest edition of Johnson' polemic anti-evolution screed Darwin on Trial contained an endorsement from Plantinga

Since you have constantly refused to cite any text talking about Plantingas involvement in ID based on EAAN it's about time to change this if you want to have any influence on this article. And remember: this is an article about EAAN. The text has to mention EAAN, Plantinga and ID as related to each other. Anything else is OR and fails WP:V. Good luck.

--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Student of philosophy's continual attempts to ignore/side-step the existing evidence";

• Sidesteps Plantinga's involvement in ISCID, using a ludicrously inapt analogy to Tom Cruise/War of the Worlds -- who is it that's being "comical"?
• Ignores the fact that "ID advocates ... cite the EAAN in defence of their positions"...
  • ...then pretends that EAAN is" only "an interesting argument for anybody opposed to naturalism"
• "Since you have constantly refused to cite any text talking about Plantingas involvement in ID based on EAAN"
  1. 'Stop changing the bloody goalposts -- this was in response to your repeated and ludicrous WIDER claim that Palantinga isn't an ID advocate.
  2. In an case Forrest, Ruse, Moreland & Beckwith (and I suspect a number of others besides) all place EAAN in the context of ID.

I find that I am no longer in position to be WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF to Student of philosophy's chronic tendentiousness. I will therefore withdraw for now & allow others to deal with him for the time being. Nothing in this withdrawal should be considered to be in any way acceptance of the validity of their premises, of the soundness of their logic or of their conclusions -- all of which I can be assumed to reject unless I state to the contrary. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to give a summary of the problems of Hrafns arguments here.

Hrafns claim was that EAAN as an argument against naturalism is part of the ID movement. Prima facie this seems obviously wrong because Plantinga and others stated several times that EAAN is perfectly compatible with theistic evolution and is not directed against the theory of evolution. This has been challenged by Ruse, but it seems without argument and he is the only one to challenge this. Hrafn was never able to provide any argument for why EAAN was related to ID without engaging in irrelevant ad hominem arguments of the following sort: Plantinga is a member of ISCID or Plantinga presented the argument at an ID conference. Another attempt to link EAAN to ID has been to show that EAAN has been discussed in books about ID (in particular "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics"). This also failed because Hrafn was never able to provide a text explicitly linking EAAN to ID. WP:V requires a text as a source. The context alone is not enough, especially because there was also a chapter on theistic evolution in the book. The idea that everything contained in an anthology on ID must either be pro or contra ID is obviously OR. Therefore this source also failed. He then quoted Ruse's article in "The Cultures of Creationism". Unfortunately this also fails WP:V because Ruse never claimed that Plantinga is a supporter of ID by means of EAAN. As a matter of fact his quote never so much as mentions EAAN. Dave souza mentioned that Ruse makes his judgement of Plantinga as a supporter of ID based on facts about Plantingas person and other work by him, not EAAN (13:53, 19 May 2009). Hrafn then proposed 2 more promising sources but failed to provide a citation that links EAAN to ID. Dave Souza then provided a link to Plantingas article "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible" where Plantinga takes a rather critical stance towards evolutionary explanations but at the same time wrote:First, let me remind you once more that I am no expert in this area and also makes clear that christians can be theistic evolutionists. But even if one would take this article to be enough to link Plantinga to ID, it would still not link EAAN to ID. So it seems things are pretty much the way they startet:

1. EAAN is an argument against naturalism
2. Many theories and ideas are directed against naturalism, f.e. Deism, Theism, natural Theology and ID (although less clearly because ID adherents several times made obscure claims about the designer being an alien lifeform and thus not supernatural).
3. EAAN is thus not an argument linked to any of these theories exclusively, it's part of the bigger effort to show that naturalism is false (or rather that it is false to believe in naturalism).

It should be noted that if EAAN would be a part of "ID's war against naturalism", there would most likely be numerous articles explicitly adressing this connection given the considerable literature on EAAN. But obviously it's impossible to find even one source that doesn't fail the wikipedia policy.

--Student of philosophy (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Overall structure

Well, we need to get rid of all of the sections and integrate different opinions into a coherent whole...the meanings of the argument, the flaws of the argument, the wider political context...rather than he said/he said sections. Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that such a "coherent whole" is possible. You are welcome to try however. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. But I can still hope that maybe there's hope for a decent article that complies with policy. if not, well, that's what AFD and WP:PM are for... Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the level of coverage, an AfD doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of resulting in a deletion. And I don't know of any article that offers sufficient overlap to make merging viable. To "integrate", we really would need some good secondary sources summarising the criticisms (and defences) of the argument -- and I haven't seen any as yet. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right about AFD. But I'm still wondering about whether there might be something to upmerge this into. Though yeah, I'm not sure what that is, and I'm pretty sure that whatever the article is, it doesn't exist yet. Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For obvious reasons AFD has been rejected for this argument some time ago. I suggested some ways to improve the article in the two new discussion sections. I wonder what you'd like to put into the secion on political context. You still haven't come up with a source linking EAAN to ID that doesn't violate OR or WP:V. And I don't know of any other philosophical argument that has a passage on its "political context".--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

The page was both too long, so I archived old discussion. That still left a page that was over 160k, so I removed sections that had turned unproductive and were not actively related to article content. Guettarda (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious edits

1. Contrary to this edit summary, the paragraph gives the context Ruse places it within -- that of ID 'New Creationism'. I can see why Student of philosophy wants this paragraph deleted -- as it undercuts his whole 'EAAN isn't related to ID' BS.
2. Likewise, contrary to this edit summary it is Ruse's conclusion in analysing EAAN. It really doesn't matter whether Student of philosophy disagrees with this conclusion or not.
3. This tag was for the unsubstantiated claim that "Plantinga traces his meditations all the way back to Charles Darwin" -- which the citation for the Darwin quote does not verify.
4. The discussion of Fales criticism that Student of philosophy deleted here is considerably greater than the very brief commentary (given it was based upon only a review of the book) in the Naturalism Defeated? section. If duplication is an issue, it makes more sense to delete the bullet point than the paragraph.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the things in the appropriate place, it's hard enough to follow the arguments as it is. There is now a section about Ruse's unrelated passages. And feel free to make another attempt at constructing a non OR and non WP:V relation between ID and EAAN in a new passage in the discussion (maybe social/political context of EAAN?). Also please avoid obviously non NPOV titles like "tendentious edits".

Also I added another source for the passage you mentioned to content you. --Student of philosophy (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No. This is the first section in which this issue was raised, so this is "the appropriate place". Just because you decide to create another section about Ruse's related passages (they summarise the introduction to, and quote the conclusion from, his discussion of EAAN) does not mean that I have to go there. The characterisation of your edits in this itle is entirely justified by WP:SPADE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Usualy a bit more structure in a debate is appreciated (I appreciated Guettarda edits to get a better structure). You can still copy your comments to the appropriate place.--Student of philosophy (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to the comment misplaced in #Unrelated content in the Ruse passage:

1. Only half the text was in bold -- making a point that you had been blithely ignoring (hence the bold).
2. It would be obvious to anybody not looking for half an excuse to delete the material that "Ruse concludes:" meant in conclusion to the material directly above it -- i.e. material on the EAAN.
3. No, the Ruse section on Plantinga is (apart from a reasonably brief introductory paragraph describing Plantinga) purely on the EAAN.

In response to the comment directly above -- tacking on new threads to older-threads-to-which-they're-only-loosely-related is actually a hindrance to discussion -- as it means you've got to search through the page for new entries, rather than simply looking at the 'coal face' at the bottom. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you prefer a long stream of chronological argument instead of systematic argument, so I'll accommodate to your personal preferences. Of course Ruses statements about Plantinga are about Plantinga (hence the tautology). This implies that they are not indirectly about EAAN, unless there is more evidence. You haven't provided any, so I'll get rid of the first passage unless you meet the burden of proof. Concerning the latter statement of Ruse. Why would Ruse mention that Plantinga fails to provide an argument for Creationism if EAAN doesn't intent so? Please give me an appropriate answer to this particular question.--Student of philosophy (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for including it is CONTEXT! Ruse is discussing EAAN in the CONTEXT of ID creationism, a CONTEXT you deny exists. (As to why I'm putting this in big bold capitals, see my point #1 above). I have restored the material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Ruses book exclusively about EAAN? It doesn't seem so according to amazon. So Ruses conclusions about Plantinga (as a person, Plantinga is not EAAN) may very well (and hopefully are, because anything else would disqualify Ruse as an intellectual) be grounded in other facts he knows about Plantinga, not EAAN. Now PLEASE stop trying desperately to bring your personal sentiments about Plantinga and ID into this article about a philosophical argument. Your OR failing WP:V is annoying and is damaging the quality of this article. --Student of philosophy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Given that it is not "Ruses book", your question demonstrates a lamentably ignorance of the subject.
2. Your wild speculations about "Ruses conclusions about Plantinga" are therefore worthless. Your whole comment can be summed up as 'I don't have clue about what is in the book, but here is what the book said' -- the worst possible sort of WP:OR.
3. As to what the book does say. Ruse' chapter is titled 'The New Creationism: Its Philosophical Dimension' -- as it states in the contextual material you deleted, and his coverage of Plantinga "focuses his discussion of Plantinga on the EAAN" -- as it states in the contextual material you deleted.

Given you have just deleted the very material that rebuts your argument, I really have nothing further to say to you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P)

Agree that the context should be shown, and have restored the disputed properly sourced text. Student of philosophy, please stop trying desperately to impose your psrsonal sentiments on this article by removing Ruse's views. . . dave souza, talk 12:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not gonna buy this book just to refute your claims based on actual quotes by Ruse. It seems we're stuck with the rather bad quality of this article because of Hrafns refusal of providing sources that fulfil basic intellectual standarts. I'd suggest you participate in the discussion about the criterion of inclusion in the article. Since you're very fond of Ruse you might want to suggest any hint for why he should be included. I'd rather have your participation now than your rants and edits later.--Student of philosophy (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've seen that you still haven't answered one of my two questions. Here is the quote by Ruse: "In a chapter titled 'The New Creationism: Its Philosophical Dimension', in The Cultures of Creationism, philosopher of science Michael Ruse discusses Phillip E. Johnson, Michael Behe along with Alvin Plantinga (and specifically his EAAN) as "the more sophisticated proponents" of creationism's increased philosophical orientation.[23] Ruse states that Plantinga "pushes the science-religion conflict further than Johnson",[24" Can you make clear how this is related to EAAN? Does Ruse explicitly state that "EAAN is among the more sophisticated proponents of creationism's increased philosophical orientation?" It would be helpful if you could post the whole sentence. And Ruses claim that Plantinga pushes the science-religion conflict further than Johnsons seems unrelated to EAAN. What are your reasons for including it in an article about an argument against naturalism? Did Ruse claim that PLantinga pushes the science-religion conflict further with EAAN? Right now it's just very hard to see how anything of this is related to EAAN (if one doesn't presuppose that EAAN is an ID argument) and I'd like to improve this. I'm pretty sure any neutral person will have similar difficulties in seeing how judgements about Plantingas person relate to EAAN.--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure of the argument

• The argument has been put forward by Plantinga in 1993, 2002 and 2008. He has slightly adapted it to the criticism given. Which version should be stated in the article? I suggest the 2002 version in Beilbys book because it's the central publication on EAAN and the version in 2008 (knowledge of god) because it's the most recent version.

--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Guettarda added a source needed tag to many steps of the argument. If everything is taken from the same source, is it necessary to make an additional footnote for every sentence or step of the argument?--Student of philosophy (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I reject your premise. As the article stands, there is one {{fact}} for the argument itself (in its entirety -- necessary so that the reader knows which exposition of the argument it is sourced to) + one for some claims on how the argument relates to theism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a question, not an argument moving from premis to conclusion. Right now several different steps have footnotes, not just the argument + how it relates to theism. But I guess more footnotes never hurt, may be helpful for readers.--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section

Structure of the criticism section

So far the criticism seems to be a mingle-mangle of subjective preferences. I'd like to discuss here the basic criterions for including a response to EAAN here. I reckon there have been around 40 or more peer reviewed responses to Plantinga. Planting provided a defense of EAAN to at least 12 of these essays. We have to make a choice because we can't include all of those answers. Those not included might still be listet for completeness. I suggest the following criterion:

• The central publication on EAAN, Bilbeys essay collection, should have priority.
• More important/influential authors before less important authors. Tooley f.e. is considered to be one of the foremost metaphysicians by the oxford guide to metaphysics if I remember correctly. Merricks is the author of objects and persons, Fodor is famous for his philosophy of mind. How do Robbins, Ruse and Fitelson compare to them?
• Different answers deal with different parts of the argument. The whole argument should be covered.
• Arguments Plantinga has given attention before arguments not answered by anyone.
• The argument has to deal exclusively with EAAN and not with Plantinga, christian philosophy, science/religion or naturalism in general.

--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You keep mentioning Tooley, but never cite him, let alone suggesting text to go into the article discussing Tooley's discussion of EAAN.
2. Given the centrality of Evolution to the EAAN, it would seem appropriate to have a philosopher of science, preferably one with expertise in that area weigh in. To my knowledge, the more (most?) prominent philosophers working in that area are Barbara Forrest, Robert T. Pennock & Michael Ruse (can anybody suggest others?). To my knowledge, neither of the first two have discussed EAAN in any detail.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather establish the criterions for inclusion first before spending time on a text that might get deleted.

A philosopher of science is a good idea. I'd suggest Evan Fales as a famous philosopher of science instead of Ruse since Ruse seems to be famous for his work in the ID & evo debate mainly (it seems he has never published any article on EAAN, there is just a section in a book about ID in the US). It also seems that his stance in the science/religion debate was severly criticized other philosophers (The cultures of creationism p.175). Evan Fales on the other hand wrote an article in Beilbys Naturalism Defeated? and another article called "Plantinga's Case against Naturalistic Epistemology".--Student of philosophy (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1. And I'd rather see proposed new content, rather than continual hypothetical context-free discussion. Or to put it another way: kindly pony up with what you're proposing replacing current material with, before proposing getting rid of some of it.
2. I find it odd that you're now suggesting Fales, having previously tried to delete the majority on the content on his discussion of the EAAN.
3. I would note that Fales' background is in physics rather than biology. How extensively has he written on the philosophy of biology in general, and that of evolution in particular?
4. I would therefore have no objection to including more material from Fales, in addition to material from Ruse, but have yet to be convinced that it should be included instead of him.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I would but It took a long time until you even accepted direct quotes by Plantinga concerning evolution. This is why I hesitate a bit. But I'll take your word for it.
2. I only deleted redundant material. I'd welcome more detailed expositions of the essays in Naturalism Defeated?. Without doubt they stand out in the impressive amount of literature on EAAN.
3. Fodor, Ramsey and Fales employ arguments from the philosophy of biology. And what seems important: to some degree they agree with each other although many details vary and they have different focuses. Ruse on the other hand has not published anything on EAAN in a peer reviewed journal and states than Plantinga argues for creationism in EAAN, something Plantinga and others have explicitly denied on several occasions. This alone makes him a dubious candidate for inclusion in an article in my opinion.--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Authors

Fales

Fales has published one essay in Naturalism Defeated and one somewhere else. The content of the two is very similar. I've deleted the passage on Fales and suggest to reduce the discussion to his essay in Naturalism Defeated. The content of the two is nearly the same and it seems weird to discuss all the responses in naturalism defeated except Fale's to avoid redundancy. --Student of philosophy (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Darwin quote

The statement that "Plantinga traces his meditations all the way back to Charles Darwin" gives the misleading impression that Darwin shared the same view, as the quotation from Darwin is lifted out of its context. Darwin doubted Graham's argument from purpose in natural laws, and while his own "inward conviction" was "that the Universe is not the result of chance", Darwin expressed doubt that this conviction could be trusted. Source: Desmond and Moore's Darwin pp. 652–653. Plantinga appears to be expressing the opposite view, asserting that testable science should be doubted. This misreading is not shared by AiG, and Plantinga's wording should be examined with care as is seems unlikely that Plantinga is so blatantly quote-mining Darwin. . . dave souza, talk 12:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "traces this doubt" might be more to the point and less misleading. Darwin seems to express only general doubts about the reliability of our cognitive faculties, not a developed argument.--Student of philosophy (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

I would strongly Student of philosophy read WP:TALK, particularly

1. where it states "Start new topics at the bottom of the page" &
2. where it suggests that large-scale refactoring is not appropriate (this would include attempts at recontextualising older discussion into the context of an editor's later comments).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This

Looks more like a paper seitten on the subject then a article--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Comments like "No,in spite of taunting from Student of philosophy, "The next edit by Hrafn will [NOT] violate the three strikes rule")" and "See discussion page for the argumentation about Ruse. The next edit by Hrafn will violate the three strikes rule." are not good. Be warned William M. Connolley (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

William: my point was that my "next edit" (the edit to which I attached that edit summary), did not "violate the three strikes rule" as it did not involve a revert, but merely placing a template on the disputed section. I'm sorry if I failed to articulate this sufficiently clearly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Due weight

The only reason anyone outside of philosophical debates about "naturalism" have heard of this is in the context of ID. The only reason the "average reader" is likely to have heard of this is in the context of ID...Pennock's anthology and ARN are likely to have readerships that dwarf those of philosophy journals. Since Wikipedia articles need to be aimed at the "average reader", the ID issue needs to be directly addressed in the body of the article. So while ID is not the most important context relative to the subject matter, it's important enough to the average reader that leaving out mention of it violated NPOV/UNDUE. Guettarda (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This is nonsense and completely uninformed. The average reader with an interest in this argument propably approaches this from natural theology or philosophy of religion in general.--194.124.140.39 (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an absurd argument, our articles are aimed at general readers and not just religious apologists. Plantinga is clearly dabbling in science, and the scientific viewpoint needs to be included. . . dave souza, talk 07:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, the argument goes into philosophy of science insofar as epistemology is always involved there. Jerry Fodor is a good proponent of the philosophy of science viewpoint.--194.124.140.39 (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange, we only seem to have one sentence about Fodor's argument, based on a brief summary of Fodor's views by a religious apologist who clearly favours Plantinga. Due weight is indeed needed. . . dave souza, talk 09:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been suggesting all the time. But I seem to be the only one who owns a copy of naturalism defeated? here and was busy arguing against crude ID conspiracy theories and therefore didn't have the time so far to expand the article. I'd welcome it very much if you could expand the criticism section based on naturalism defeated?. By the way, I wonder how you know that the original author of the article was a "religious apologist".--194.124.140.39 (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Souza mentioned that "[t]hat's an absurd argument, our articles are aimed at general readers and not just religious apologists." Most people will approach a philosophical argument of this sort from a philosophical context. In this case propably from natural theology, epistemology or philosophy of religion. But this doesn't mean that they are religious apologists. There are many atheists involved in natural theology (as critics), natural atheology and philosophy, e.g. Mackie, Tooley and Wielenberg.--Student of philosophy (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"extended the idea..."

I removed the following statement from the article:

Plantinga extended the idea in a 2002 anthology, Naturalism Defeated, edited by James K. Beilby.

When I re-wrote that section, I tried to incorporate the existing material; I felt uncomfortable about adding a statement that I didn't have a source for, but left it with a {{fact}} tag, hoping that a citation might be forthcoming. It's been more than two weeks with nothing added, so I'm removing it, pending a source. Guettarda (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Suitability of PZ Myers Blog Post on EAAN

Guettarda, My apologies for removing the link to Myers' blog post on EAAN, but I strongly feel it is inappropriate for two reasons;

1. I believe it transgresses the following from WP:EL: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." Myers certainly does not fall under the "recognized authority" rubric in this context.
2. Whilst this article is not a biography page, I think the spirit of WP:EL in respect of links in biography entries of living people should be respected: "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links." - emphasis added. Ref: also the guidelines on WP:BLP

Summing the "sources of dubious value" and the "derogatory" criteria, I think this link should not be included. I'll add that I also don't see much philosophical merit in the form of Meyer's critique - he doesn't isolate Plantinga's main points and deal with them dispassionately - so I feel it's just a bad link anyway. I'm sure better critical engagements with EAAN are out there waiting to be found. Muzhogg (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Myers is most certainly a recognised authority on the evolution-creation issue, and is writing about that topic. So clearly issue #1 isn't a problem. It's also a clear, lucid explanation of the issue - unlike this article. It's accessible to the average reader - unlike this article. And the tone is actually just the sort of 'critical engagement' that's appropriate to silly games like "argument". Guettarda (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Myers expertise in science is not in question here. However, his expertise in philosophy most certainly is. He acknowledges his inability to grasp Plantinga's technical writings, and his major (if not only) contribution to philosophy has been self-publication via a blog. That's a strong prima facie case against expert status in respects of engagement with analytic philosophy, I think. If I am incorrect regarding Myers engagement with Plantinga in peer-reviewed articles or third-party publications, I would welcome citation of such material.

That said, the central issue is the tone of the piece. Here the only criteria I have in mind is Wikipedia policy, which seems to me very clear on linking to pieces which contain derogatory language regarding living persons.

I am equally concerned, may I say, by the nature of comments on that linked article - including those by Plantinga's supporters - so it's not just Myers' language which is an issue.

PS: I notice you have restated the link - this should not happen until this issue is resolved.

Regards, Muzhogg (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to make an argument based on guidelines and policies, please make it based on our existing guidelines and policies, not some new addenda you have made up. Both PZ Myers and Pharyngula meet the notability requirements mentioned in the EL guideline. And he is a subject-matter expert on the creation-evolution issue, and is writing about that issue. The guideline aims to avoid links to non-notable blogs. That's not the issue here. Please understand that our guidelines and policies are not legal documents, and should not be interpreted in that manner.

As for "I notice you have restated the link - this should not happen until this issue is resolved"...you are the one edit-warring to make changes to the article. There's no requirement for your change to stand until it is resolved. Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies are due at this point. For some reason my response to the above didn't appear due to an error on my part. So I can appreciate that it looks like I'm attempting an edit war rather than a construtive dialogue. I think I'll leave a response for a couple of days - partly to let other people comment if they wish, partly to ensure that things don't get too heated. Again, sorry for giving the wrong impression. Muzhogg (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Muzhogg, here. Pharyngula is fun to read, but I don't think it's an appropriate citation, and Myers' writing on it is not really significantly better than lay writing on the subject. Stuff he tosses out off the cuff shouldn't be given citable status. Also, he's argumentative and derisive (even if his derision is justified). Graft | talk 06:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You are working under a misapprehension. Whether Pharyngula is WP:RS and should be "given citable status" is not at issue, as it is not being cited. The issue is whether it meets WP:EL. As far as I can tell, nobody has stated that it fails any of WP:ELNO. Also, as this is neither a biography nor a citation, the prohibition in WP:BLP is likewise irrelevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're correct; my mistake. However, WP:EL still suggests avoiding blog links, and Myers is certainly not a recognized authority on EAAN or philosophy in general; he's just a smart guy who can digest an argument. I think the better (harder) alternative to having that link is making the article do the work instead. Graft | talk 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Russel Blackford, who has both philosophical and scientific credentials, seems to appreciate PZ's post, and gives a very concise summing up of some issues with Plantinga's argument. Agreed that our article needs to do better than it does at present. . . dave souza, talk 20:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A few remarks on the discussion so far;

1. I apologize to all editors on this article if my removal of the link was an innappropriate application of WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis in original). I hope, however, that I redeem myself by opening the matter for reasoned discussion here.
2. Re Myers "expertise" in this context: Myers himself acknowledges in the linked piece that he doesn't grasp Plantinga's technical writings. His only engagement with EAAN has been with a non-technical piece in a popular Christian magazine. Plantinga is qualified, published, tenured and respected in philosophy. His peers find him lucid and highly competent - and can critique his presentation of EAAN without derogation. Thus, the problem more likely lies with Myers than with Plantinga. Myers might merit expert status in other fields but given his obvious limitations when it comes to dealing with technical philosophical material together with his inability to restrict his remarks to issues rather than individuals, I see no justification whatever for a claim of expert status on philosophical matters.
3. Re Hrafn's remark: "nobody has stated it fails any of WP:ELNO" - my original point 1 (above) cited this very policy and it's the basis of pretty much my entire objection! "No links to blogs" (except by experts and then only rarely) is the central issue at hand. The link automatically bears a burden of suspicion simply by being a blog entry. If it was very, very good, rather than very, very bad, it might merit an exception. It isn't so it doesn't.
4. Re Guettarda's accusation of treating policies as "legal documents": in my original point 2 (above) I acknowledged that the article is not a biography and that the "no derogatory remarks in links" principle from WP:EL doesn't strictly apply. It's arguing that the article isn't a bio and hence the derogatory tone of Myers' piece is "irrelevant" which reduces the policies to "legal documents". In short, I'm not the one appealing to loopholes in the rules to justify an inclusion - I'm appealing to the broad principles which inform the policies to question inclusion - so I rather see Guettarda's point working for, not against, my objection.

Taking together Myers' self-acknowledged lack of expertise, the "no links to blogs" principle, and the no "derogatory remarks on living persons" principle, I can't see why we would wish to retain this link. Certainly the highly contestable claim to expert status does little to offset the blatantly obvious limitations of Myers' contribution. Muzhogg (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I take your word for it that Plantinga is qualified, published, tenured and respected in philosophy, but his EAAN ventures into science where it is treated with derision. Blackford picks up a couple of problems with the argument:

"It's an interesting argument, and there is much to be said about it. In the end, though, it's nonsense. First, it assumes a false dichotomy: either we have a highly reliable (even Godlike) capacity to discover the truth or we have no such capacity. Why not assume that we have a limited capacity to discover truths about the world, and that, thanks mainly to language, we have a cultural capacity to improve on this over historical time (and with great effort)? ... And why assume that some general-purpose capacity to perceive the world around us accurately, and to model it via processes that conform with basic kinds of reasoning... would not be good for survival and reproduction? ... The human brain is far from being a perfect truth detector. It's so imperfect that it looks far more like the product of evolution than like the design of a benevolent god."

Plantinga's peers may find him lucid and highly competent, but that sounds like a way of restricting comment to those who go along with his bizarre philosophical notions. Plantinga's argument seems to boil down to "if you believe evolution means that minds are imperfect at perceiving The Truth, then you can't assert there are no gods as you can't be sure that you're right. I believe God made my perception perfect, so I'm right." If that's respected in philosophy, it does nothing for the reputation of philosophy. If my understanding of his refined argument is imperfect, clarification of this in the article would be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 17:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the blogosphere, nor a discussion of the merits of EAAN, nor those of Plantinga as a philosopher. It is a discussion on the merits of Myers' piece under the guidelines agreed by the Wikipedia community. So far I've seen nothing that suggests my objection is ill-placed on the basis of those guidelines. Can we please stop avoiding the obvious: My claim is that Myers lacks expert status on the subject matter of this article because he hasn't published anything in the third-party press on EAAN and the obviously derogatory nature of his remarks - in response to a popular magazine article - outweighs whatever limited merit his blog post might possess. Is there any substantial response to that claim? Such as "you're wrong, here's a peer-reviewed journal article by Myers on EAAN where he discusses the scientific issues"? I know that expecting a loose-cannon like Myers to live by the same rules of academic discourse as everybody else on the planet "sounds" like blatant discrimination, but there you go - I'll just have to try to live with myself. Muzhogg (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Plantinga developed the argument more towards the philosophy of mind and mental causation lately (Knowledge of god, 2008), and this should be reflected in the article page. Right now with Ruse and Myers we have a tendency towards the oldest formulations of the argument. Myers would only intensify this tendency and he's not even a qualified philosopher.--194.124.140.39 (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the extent that I doubt that Myer's piece would be a good source for the article, but as an external link it does give a concise introduction to the debate from a scientific viewpoint. The demand for all comment to be peer reviewed does seem to set an elitist standard for any comment on an argument which appears to have little traction outside apologists for creationism and some philosophical circles. More lucid critical comment is needed on this subject, and an explanation of Plantinga's revisions to his position would be welcome. . dave souza, talk 07:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an argument about epistemology and philosophy of mind has has been widely discussed in those circles. And this discussion has taken place in mostly peer reviewed journals and publications. As discussed to some extend the idea that this has anything to do with ID besides perhaps sociological relations is simply wrong. And this argument has been adpoted by evoultionists as well, so it's clearly no argument "adpoted by apologists for creationism". I suggest you read "naturalism deafeated?" and "knowledge of god" to get a feeling for the impact of the argument in professional philosophy and its modern developments.--194.124.140.39 (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is also a common creationist argument, an aspect which has to be dealt with in the article. The fact that the EAAN was presented by Plantinga at an intelligent design conference where he also acted as a moderator, and used by him to argue against naturalism, is significant and not something to delete because it doesn't fit comfortably into the little world of peer reviewed philosophical discussions. . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "the demand for all comment to be peer reviewed" - this is overstating the case, Dave souza. It was Myers who chose the ground on this one, not me, when he started by denigrating Plantinga's philosophical credentials. Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and as long as Myers wants to big-note his philosophical credentials, I'll continue to point out that he has zero ground to stand on. If Myers had offered his scientific opinion without the derogatory remarks, I might have let this link stand without objection. But he didn't. And I'm quite happy to call him for the egotistical braggart that he is.

But let's deal with your remarks about "elitism" and "the little world of peer-review" for a moment: Have you not stopped to ask yourself how Myers' piece is likely to impact those - especially philosophers and religious believers - who likely have an interest in Plantinga's work, but aren't familiar with, and likely haven't considered, the scientific issues involved? To be quite frank, I personally couldn't think of a WORSE introduction to the scientific issues than Myers' piece and why anybody would want to show-case it as a model of concise scientifically-informed discourse on EAAN is, frankly, utterly beyond me. Nobody who needs a lesson in the science is going to read past the first paragraph. And they probably won't regard an article which links to it particularly highly either. Is it not obvious that Myers is catering for a particular audience? An audience which regular readers of his blog can easily identify? Frankly, Myers is simply preaching to the choir and nobody else is listening. I'd respectfully suggest that this should be kept in mind before any more remarks about what does, or does not, have "little traction" outside the narrow confines of a particular niche audience. -- Muzhogg (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding arguments that only "peer reviewed" sources are acceptable, I'm more concerned about the unwarranted deletion of Ruse's discussion of EAAN than about the question of whether or not Myer's piece should be linked. You might wish to review that issue. Blackford's blog article raises issues that don't seem to be addressed here, unless I'm mistaken, and these appear to me to be valid points needing addressed. As it is, the article at present clearly misrepresents one of its established sources, Fitelson and Sober's response. I'll work on that, don't know if something has been lost through POV pushing or vandalism. . . dave souza, talk 11:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My deepest apologies, Dave souza - I cleary misunderstood the point of your comment on "peer review." Re the Ruse material: the last sentence is ungrammatical(!), but otherwise it's encyclopedic, third-party published (= as good as peer-reviewed), and it's directly relevant. If it deals with an earlier version of EAAN, then appropriate sources can be cited by way of response. If no such sources exist, then for purposes of the article the material can't be dismissed as outdated. Personally, I would not oppose reinstatement. If EAAN has gone through recognizable historical stages, it would be helpful to have this discussed in the article - with appropriate supporting citations, of course. Agree regarding the utility of the Blackford material - why not drop a line on his blog and ask if he knows of a citable source? I won't hold my breath, but you never know your luck all the same... -- Muzhogg (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

EAAN, Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution

I added a section about EAAN, ID and TE to avoid distraction in the core of the article. I added the content that I think can be found in the argument itself and some explicit statements by Plantinga and Beilby concerning EAAN and TE. I'd suggest that sociological relations between EAAN and ID are also placed in this section. Since I'm very sceptical about any relation between EAAN and ID that is worth being mentioned outside sociology, I myself won't add anything like this. If you add such material please refrain from interpreting it and just post quotes or paraphrases.--Student of philosophy (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice touch. I tend to agree that a distinction is needed between the philosophical implications and the social applications of EAAN - and I think the sociological perspective is enormously underappreciated. It would be nice to think we could get some encyclopedic content on the latter. This new section certainly gets my vote. -- Muzhogg (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis: the claim about ISCID being defunct came from the link to International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design in the article. I have no real issue either way - it was just that I thought that "fellow of" was better than "fellow in" and made the tense change as an secondary tweak in order to maintain consistency across Wikipedia. I still prefer "of" to "in" and will change that, but am happy to leave it to you if you want to revert to past tense. Regards. -- Muzhogg (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll alter the language to reflect this. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Plantinga's association with ISCID and the 2002 conference seem to me utterly irrelevant to the relation of EAAN with ID and/or TE. I suggest omission of any biographical material from this section of the article altogether. -- Muzhogg (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a clear connection, which is significant in understanding the background to bhe work, and I'm glad to note that Ruse makes the issue more explicit in his discussion of EAAN so I'll work up an introductory statement citing that to show how these pieces tie in. . . dave souza, talk 15:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Good enough. I'll wait to see what you come up with before listing my concerns - you might well resolve them in your intro piece. Apologies to all, by the way, for the "junk" after my previous entry (deleted in this edit). It was caused by a clash of a Wikipedia gadget and a Firefox extension on my computer, in case anyone wondered. All resolved now! -- Muzhogg (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, wondered about that. I've summarised Ruse's remarks from the start of his discussion of EAAN, and made it into one paragraph with the supplementary info about ISCID and the ID conference where Plantinga presented EAAN. That then gives the context for Plantinga's statements about what EAAN is not directed against. . . dave souza, talk 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't resolve all my concerns, but we can deal with them later. What's concerning me just at the minute is this book review which discusses the Ruse essay in question which I just discovered. In it the reviewer states "This essay stands out because of Ruse’s explicit hostility towards Intelligent Design, which he presents in this essay without nuance as a creationist movement." Haven't decided what to make of this yet - "hostile" isn't a label I'd normally apply to Ruse so I think I'd want to read his piece to evaluate this alleged "hostility" for myself. But if there are issues with the even-handedness of Ruse's treatement I don't know quite what happens next. -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a creationist movement, as found explicitly in the Kitzmiller v. Dover#Decision and shown rather graphically by cdesign proponentsists. While Plantinga does seem to have shown remarkable sympathy to creationism even before ID got going, the EAAN argument is an argument against philosophical naturalism to a large extent conflated with methodological naturalism, an argument shared with ID proponents like Johnson but by no means all of ID. He may fit inside their "big tent", but there's no evidence that he shares their more creationist assumptions. His claim to support theistic evolution could do with examination, as his ideas appear to differ considerably from the views of, say, Kenneth R. Miller, but again the term does cover a wide spectrum of views. Anyway, in terms of NPOV it would be good to show any reputable refutations of Ruse, after showing Ruse's expert view. . . dave souza, talk 22:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it's interesting that the reviewer describes Plantinga as an adherent of Intelligent Design, but since Taede Smedes, University of Leiden, The Netherlands wrote it in 2004, before the Kitzmiller trial, and is unlikely to have detailed knowledge of U.S. creationism, that's probably not an expert source. . dave souza, talk 23:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My concern in this instance was the reference to "explicit hostility." Where there's hostility there's likely passion, thus possibly an uncritical acceptance of assumptions which distort one's thinking. But this would be out of character for Ruse, in my opinion. So, as I say, I'd like to read the Ruse piece to see why the reviewer thought "hostile" was an apt label for a philosopher who normally provides remarkably balanced treatment. Simply making an observation, not putting an argument. -- Muzhogg (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think any autobiographical detail has to go. The same goes for different places of presentation of this argument. I know of no other argument on Wikipedia that has autobiographical details and one particular place of presentation mentioned. As for Ruse and your statement "Anyway, in terms of NPOV it would be good to show any reputable refutations of Ruse, after showing Ruse's expert view". The problem is that Ruse is absolutely alone in his interpretation of EAAN and its context. By now there are around 40 peer reviewed answers to EAAN and many more that are not published. Ruse is the only one who somehow brings EAAN in a relation with ID. Nobody even mentiones anything in that neighbourhood because Plantinga himself makes clear on several occasions that EAAN doesn't support any claims particular to the ID movement. A balanced article should in my opinion be very careful about mentioning someone like Ruse who is very lonely with his claims about EAAN. I don't want to go into his argument, but it seems possible that he even misunderstands EAAN as an argument against evolution given the last quote in the criticism section. And his claim that EAAN conflates m & p naturalism has never been made by anybody else in professional philosophy and seems highly unlikely given Plantingas explicit definition of philosophical naturalism. So all in all Ruse is a highly unusual critic of EAAN and it's not entirely clear to me why he is noteworthy among others critics who are (along with Plantinga) considered to be among the most important philosophers alive (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/living_philosop.html).--Student of philosophy (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I largely support this - as I comment below: what's required is citation of Plantinga where he actually states his view in regard to the relation of EAAN and ID (and not an unsubstantiated claim by a third-party regardless of how eminent). With or without such citation, the biographical material is of no relevance and can only serve to prejudice discussion. -- Muzhogg (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Plantinga's 1993 formulation of the argument

I renamed the argument to this title in order to prepare the article for more content. I hope to implement later developments of EAAN sometime soon. Since much of the criticism is devoted to a part of the argument Plantinga no longer uses (Beliefs are causally efficacious with respect to behaviour but maladaptive; Beliefs are causally efficacious with respect to behaviour and also adaptive, but they may still be false) I think it makes sense to add the later developments of the argument.--Student of philosophy (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. A brief summary of Plantinga's changes in his argument is merited. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Does it follow that separation into "1993" and "later" versions of the argument should be reflected in a comparable separation of the critical responses? -- Muzhogg (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, a lot of the original argument continues into the later editions and fragmenting the response may not work well. Probably better, in my opinion, to set out the changes in a subsection to the section showing Plantinga's formulation of the argument. Either way, it may be worth considering the structure to ensure we don't get the problems with "criticism sections" as discussed in WP:NPOV#Article structure and WP:CRITS. . . dave souza, talk 15:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. They express some very good insights. The problem of maintenance given this article is likely to draw attention from the philosophically challenged and manically deranged of all persuasions is, I think, worthy of serious consideration. I'd suggest that we allow "fragmentation" purely as a temporary measure with the short-term aim of clarifying the major stages of development, and the long-term aim of incorporating the various stages/responses into a coherent whole. It might be that there are very good reasons for spinning off certain versions of the argument into their own sub-section - but given the concerns expressed in those links, I'm now less enamoured of the idea of splitting the article any more than is necessary. -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea to bring up this question. I think if we do a good job in presenting short summaries of the criticism people will themselves understand which criticism still applies to older versions of the argument. It's quite simple, once Plantinga moved to a formulation solely concerned with epiphenomenalism, all the critique of how evolution selects for intelligence falls short. All critique concerned with defeaters, propability and philosophy of mind is still valid.--Student of philosophy (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Once the differences in Plantinga's newer formulation are clarified, it may work to focus critques more on specific arguments. Worth exploring. . dave souza, talk 08:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism in the 1993 formulation of the argument

Someone placed some of Ruse's and other Darwin exegesis within Plantingas formulation of the argument. I think it's clear from the articles structure that this is not the place for it and it's questionable whether this is important enough to be in the article anyway given how little space we have. I thus removed the lines.--Student of philosophy (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored in accordance with WP:NPOV#Article structure. If the Darwin quotemine is a central part of Plantinga's argument, it needs to be shown in context there without analysis shunted off to a "criticism" section. An alternative possibility would be a subsection specifically about Plantinga's use of the quote, showing his claims and other views. . . dave souza, talk 08:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a central part and it's only claimed that Darwin had doubts along these lines which is self-evidently true. If you insist that Ruses statement stays in I'll have to add other arguments such as Fales which grant Plantinga this comparsion in order to preserve NPOV. But I think you'll admit that this is not the place for Darwin exegisis. It's hard as it is to keep the article at a moderate length while keeping a NPOV.--Student of philosophy (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't edit war again, discuss ways to incorporate this information properly. Darwin didn't "self-evidently" have doubts along Plantinga's lines of doubting the truth of everything except divine inspiration, quite the opposite. He favoured the unprovable belief that a creator had imposed order, but doubted the validity of that belief while continuing to fully believe in the validity of empirical science. . dave souza, talk 09:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no intent to edit war or be involved in your edit war. To have doubts along these lines doesn't involve doubts about science. Plantinga doesn't himself have doubts about science. He has doubts about every content of our thoughts given naturalism. Darwin expresses (if taken literaly) that he has the same general doubts. Now one exegesis of Darwin claims that Darwin has limited his doubts to some convictions. But as others have pointed out this still allows Plantinga to make his claim. I'm gonna add more references which will once again make the whole article awkward. I hope you'll notice that the only way of keeping the article in good shape is to refrain from engaging in off topic discussion about Darwin exegisis.

Also Ruse once again misreads Plantinga (or to state it more neutral: Ruse interprets Plantinga the way nobody else does, including Plantinga himself) as labeling the idea that naturalism & evolution are selfdefeating "Darwins Doubt". But Plantinga doesn't do that. He labels the idea that given naturalism our cognitive faculties my not be reliable as "Darwins Doubt".

--Student of philosophy (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

In my opinion the article on the argument is somewhat misleading. If someone with no background visits this site, he'll notice some of the following things:

• 3 references within the article to books concerned with creationism
• Ruse as the most prominent critic of the argument
• half of the books in "references" at the end of the article are concerned with creationism
• Ruse seemingly concluding that Plantinga argues against evolution "Is it the case that evolution necessarily cannot function, or it is merely false and in another God-created world it might have held in some way — and if so, in what way?"
• A list of connections between Plantinga an ID events and organisations

Now this might give someone with no background the idea that he's on a page about some ID argument like irreducible complexity and that Plantinga is fiercly defending Intelligent Design. This impression is severly misleading. Plantinga is one of the most important philosophers alive according to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2005). Leiter describes him as "distinguished metaphysician, epistemologist and philosopher of religion at the University of Notre Dame". Plantinga carefully avoided to ever take position on the ID-Evo issue in his professional work. He explicitly said that EAAN is not an argument against evolution (or science as Ruse suggests) and is of course perfectly well compatible with theistic evolution (most people who developed the argument from reason first are theistic evolutionists). I reckon there are around 40 peer reviewed answers to EAAN, some by philosophers like Jerry Fodor (another example of the Oxford list mentioned above), Trenton Merricks and Michael Tooley. There are many more unpublished or semi-published papers on EAAN, several dissertations have been written to defent one or another argument from reason. None of those answers discover a relation between ID and EAAN. In the professional debate about EAAN this idea is as good as nonexistent. Several of these publications have been selected for the anthology Naturalism defeated?. They are arguably the most important among the published papers and they represent the different approaches to critique EAAN.

If this article is to be balanced or NPOV, then this needs to be reflected in the article. I'm willing to add more material like Plantingas 2008 formulation and Tooleys response. But I think this will not be enough to balance the article. I think a NPOV can only be achieved if the ID talk is represented the way it is in the debate about EAAN. This means 1-2 % of the article should be about Ruse and even less of that about ID and EAAN. (This would be different if Ruse were an expert in epistemology/philosophy of mind or just one of the most important philosophers today, but none of this is the case. As a matter of fact he has never even published a peer reviewed article on EAAN anywhere as far as I can tell). I hope people can put behind the way they learned about this argument and agree to balance it towards a NPOV.--Student of philosophy (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a notable issue and views should be shown in sufficient detail to represent them clearly, not on an arbitrary word count. More information on the 2008 formulation and Tooley's response will be welcome. . dave souza, talk 09:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a barely notable issue. Notable only to those who are not aware of the professional discussion on EAAN and who read Ruse (or a certain essay by him). That is one essay out of 70+! Everybody else will barely ever hear of this issue. It's comparable to other minority issues. The way it is presented now is a violation of NPOV, so the question is how to solve it. I agree with you, a wordcount is not a good idea. What do you suggest? Expanding this article to 20 pages to restore a NPOV doesn't seem to be an option. My suggestion is: Expanding Ruse in one of his claims, getting rid of the rest of him, adding Tooley, expanding Jerry Fodor.--Student of philosophy (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The notion that presenting the various criticisms of Plantinga's EAAN amounts to lending undue weight to the criticisms is completely absurd. The notability of the EAAN is derived from the very fact that it's been so intensively criticized by articulate scholars in various quarters as to its line of reasoning. Therefore the inclusion of synopses of published responses, clearly labeled as responses, is not only merited but absolutely necessary to achieve NPOV. Anything else would amount to a whitewash. There is no legitimate editorial argument here, at least not by WP standards. Consequently, I'm removing the "undue weight" templates placed in the sections presenting responses by other scholars. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I want the criticism to be balanced because, as you admit, there is good criticism by important scholards in different fields. We need to make sure that they get the weight they deserve and not some minor contribution. As for EAANS notability being derived from its critics. That's obviously nonsense. Critics like Fodor don't argue against arguments that have no merit. Plantinga is the foremost philosopher of religion and one of the most important philosophers of our time. If he writes something, usually quite an amount of literature is produced as a response. And many of the responses actually mentioned that the argument was "ingenious" or at least very interesting.

The undue weight tag was not meant to tag critical responses in general, but those by Ruse, Fitelson and Sober. I'll therefore restore my edits according to the policy. Please refrain from reverting constructive edits in violation of the wikipedia policy. And I suggest that you don't justify your edits with mentioning that I was blocked several times. This is no reason for an edit.--Student of philosophy (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments and editorial actions about what you perceive as "undue weight" are without merit. It's clear that you have repeatedly attempted to silence Plantinga's scholarly critics whenever the notion of "intelligent design" or "theistic evolution" comes into play (and also have repeatedly sought to minimize the exposure of his many critics generally), When, in fact, it's clearly indicated by a number of his scholarly critics that the EAAN is an argument in support of theistic evolution or at least closely aligned with both ID and TE. These published works involving EAAN and its close relatives are properly mentioned in the article per the WP core content policy WP:NPOV, in a balanced and dispassionate fashion, with criticisms all clearly labeled as "response(s)". The synopses of critics and mention of other works dealing with EAAN and its closely related, intertwined slants-- that is, identified by reliable sources as closely related and inextricably intertwined--are essential components of presenting this topic in reasonable accordance with WP:NPOV. I've again removed the undue weight templates, and replaced the reliably sourced material you removed.
..... Please go re-read WP:NPOV#Undue weight before engaging in further edit warring and defiance of WP content policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"It's clear that you have repeatedly attempted to silence Plantinga's scholarly critics whenever the notion of "intelligent design" or "theistic evolution" comes into play" I think this sums your position up pretty well. There is one single non peer reviewed article that talks about EAAN and ID, the only by Ruse. There are 60+ peer reviewed articles that don't mention any such relation. I have mentioned this over and over but you have chosen to ignore it. And, contrary to your uninformed claim, I have added material on theistic evolution such as Plantingas citation and even added the sentence that this is known as theistic evolution. But you have chosen to ignore this as well. And of course you didn't answer the argument concerning the removal of the Pennock anthology. The argument was pretty much your own argument for removing information about the Pennock anthology. And as a matter of fact I quoted the NPOV policy to underline the need for further balancing. So once again this accusation is ungrounded.--Student of philosophy (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no wish to summarize your entire edit history on this article, but will if called upon to do so. First, I note your clarification about your having added some material noting the relationship with theistic evolution and stand corrected. What is most clear to me and others here is that you've repeatedly sought to minimize critical responses that you don't happen to agree are valid responses, despite that they've been widely published in direct connection to the issue of "intelligent design" (as well as its very close relative "theistic evolution". Bottom line: please desist from continually pushing this particular POV of yours, since several other editors have made it clear they disagree and have provided reliable sources in support,. At least one of these (Intelligent Design Creationism and It's Critics, which includes Ruse, Fitelson and Sober) has received far wider exposure than Plantinga's other critics. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no intent to minimize critical responses in general. As a matter of fact I started on summarizing Tooleys response to Plantinga. What I did is trying to minimize long arguments by minorities who don't participate in the professional philosophical discourse. I try to push the idea that this article is about philosophy and needs to reflect what the philosophical community thinks about it. This means that certain adjustments have to be made because the latest contributers to this article are obviously coming from the ID-evo war and brought with them all their personal sentiments about the whole conflict even thought it has nothing to do with EAAN. They have provided one non peer reviewed source (Ruse, in a review his article has been called "hostile" and "besides the point of the book") and misread other sources (Pennock anthology, where the editor excluded Plantingas argument from the ID arguments) and ignored all the peer reviewed articles about EAAN. As for a book about ID recieving wider exposure than other critics: see my statement below. This book is rather irrelevant for the philosophical discourse. The debate about EAAN took place elsewhere and that's what I'm trying to show in the article. I hope you agree that this makes sense.--Student of philosophy (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What would be constructive, in my opinion, would be citations from primary sources: i.e. citations from ID adherents who have actually invoked EAAN in support of an ID position. So far the focus has been on (1) biographic material which demonstrates that Plantinga hangs out with ID adherents, which does nothing more than infer guilt by association; or (2) citation of people who say that EAAN is an ID argument. These seem to me quite secondary to the real question, viz; what self-identified ID adherents invoke EAAN in support of their position.

PS: I am very sympathetic to SofP's original point - the impression being created is that Plantinga is a ruthless defender of ID, when in fact he is nothing of the sort. Unless somebody can cite Plantinga putting an argument that EAAN infers ID, then any material which even mentions his support for ID is irrelevant and should be stricken from the article. -- Muzhogg (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a constructive way of proceeding and support this idea.--Student of philosophy (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality of the Ruse summary

It's not an easy job to give a summary of a whole essay in such a short space. But right now I think it's hard to even understand what Ruse is writing about in the essay.

• "That the EAAN conflates methodological & metaphysical naturalism." This is a surprising claim given that Plantinga has defined philosophical naturalism in his essay and given that nobody else of the whole philosophical community shares this view in a published paper. Right now this claim is useless without further details. But see NPOV for the questions whether further details are a good idea.
• The second sentence seems equally unclear. And Ruse is equally alone with this statement.
• The third point by Ruse is well written and clear to understand. But it's also exactly what Jerry Fodor wrote about.
• The last statement by Ruse is once again unclear. Is it the case that evolution necessarily cannot function, or it is merely false and in another God-created world it might have held in some way — and if so, in what way? This sentence suggests that he takes EAAN as an argument against evolution in some way. What is this about? How does he get there? Is he one of the people who misunderstand the argument as an argument against evolution?

My suggestion is to focus on one point made by Ruse. His talk about how evolution works has been made by the more prominent Jerry Fodor and Evan Fales. So I suggest to focus on one of the more surprising claims and spelling them out in 2-3 sentences instead of just a short claim. This would make the summary shorter (see NPOV post) and make it easier to understand.

This way of proceeding would be in accordance with the wiki policy on NPOV: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.". Ruse is with his views clearly a "flat earthist" in the philosophical community, an absolute minority. This should be reflected in the article.--Student of philosophy (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The first point really needs expansion, as Ruse actually writes "Using 'naturalism' in a generic sense of understanding through law (that is, rather conflating Johnson's two senses of methodological and metaphysical naturalism), Plantinga's argument is as follows." The use of the term naturalism by some philosophers to mean atheism evidently differs from normal scientific usage. Darwin was educated as a Christian naturalist in the tradition of natural theology, and was never an atheist. Our article needs to be much clearer about this, as methodological naturalism is an essential part of modern science, irrespective of religious beliefs, and metaphysical naturalism is the particular form relating to atheism.

Similarly, the second point about Plantinga fudging reads to me as criticising Plantinga for blurring the distinction between empirically testable reality and a metaphysical ultimate reality which is not supported by belief rather than evidence. Think that's a better summary of that point?

The article structure invites repetition of issues raised by various critics. Want to review the structure? If Fodor does cover the issue well, we need to show that in this article, and not just give the opaque sentence that summarises his views at present.

The argument can certainly be read as opposing evolution theory, particularly in the context of Plantinga's other views, and other critics seem to have taken that view. Plantinga's (later?) profession of a form of theistic evolution is at odds with what Elliot and Sober describe as his idea of "traditional theism" having God set evolutionary processes in motion, then intervening from time to time to insure certain outcomes. That may fall within the fringes of theistic evolution, but it also accurately describes the intelligent design creationism of Michael Behe.

Your suggestion is noted, the important thing is to address the various points brought up by Plantinga. If a number of critics comment on a particular issue that should be noted, the current article format entails repetition. If we can refocus the article on issues, it would be easier to avoid repetition but it would involve a major restructuring.

Ruse's views may be a minority in your elite community of philosphers, but this article impinges on science where Ruse ably represents the majority view. Both need to be properly represented. . dave souza, talk 09:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Your first point seems to be a lot better than the current summary.
• Concerning the second point I don't think that's what Ruse says. For EAAN presupposes a sharp distinction between perception through cognitive faculties (they are responsible for our capacity of doing science) and the metaphysical reality. This idea has a long tradition going back to descartes and is currently discussed under the name "brain in a vat". I can't imagine Ruse misunderstanding that.
• I don't think EAAN can be read as opposing evolution theory. First, it has been mentioned by many people (including Plantinga) that the problems raised by EAAN only arise if one adopts naturalism and evolution, not theism and evolution. Second, Plantinga writes in his essay evolution & design that due to god's foreknowledge he could even use "real" randomness to create humans through completely unguided evolutionary processes. In addition to that no professional philosopher (with the exception of maybe Ruse) has claimed this is possible. Given this, I think we should not mention single voices like Ruses who claim the contrary.
• The argument is not a scientific argument. It's quite irrelevant what scientists think about solipsism, brains in vats and descartes doubts. The whole point of those ideas is that all the science in the world is never gonna give us information about the truth of those ideas. EAAN is along those lines. That's why this article needs to be about philosophy and philosophers, not scientists. And I think most scientists agree with that. It seems you don't like philosophy, you call it "elite community". That's ok, but it has no place in editing an article in the discipline of philosophy. --Student of philosophy (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious edits by Kenosis

Kenosis began to undo almost any edits I make without participating in the discussion. He violated the NPOV policy by removing undue weight templates without resolving the dispute. He also undid my edit of the Pennock anthology based on the argument that it was OR, forgetting that it was exactly this argument that was the reason for including it in the first place. Since he'll propably block me without hesitation if I undo his edits I suggest someone else does. --Student of philosophy (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Student of Philosophy, you're on extremely thin WP editorial ice. For the first-glimpse reader, this wholly unsupported accusation, a flip-around twisty-turn based in part on my characterization of Student's actions as tendentious, arises directly out of Talk:Evolutionary argument against naturalism#NPOV above, and related edits. The rest of Student's tendentiousness and repetitive POV pushing began well before I got involved. Caveat emptor. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As usual arguments don't matter and are not adressed, let alone answered. I posted my reasons for the edits, I have shown where there is a discussion about topics. You're in a very problematic situation right now. I suggest you undo your edits yourself or try to justify your edits and show why you did not violate NPOV by removing the undue weight tag without resolving or participating in the disbute.--Student of philosophy (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, I removed them because your argument is without merit-- the argument that presenting synopses of criticisms by scholarly critics that have received essentially the same amount of "air time" (both general public exposure and scholarly attention) as Plantinga's arguments themselves, is somehow "undue weight". When, in fact, your editing history of this article has repeatedly and quite clearly demonstrated your quest to minimize or in some cases totally avoid the points of the many scholarly critics. It's a spurious argument, and in the context of your position of advocacy w.r.t. this article, is merely a strategy in furtherance of your POV about Plantinga. In light of your recent editing practice here, the placement of the templates in sections clearly labeled "response(s)" is disruptive in furtherance of your point.
.... I'm out of here for now. Take care, and please do feel completely free to further improve summaries of Plantinga's positions and/or that of his critics-- or not, as you might choose. As before, I won't object to any edits that can reasonably be seen as improvements that aren't squelching the published perspectives of Plantinga's critics . Hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated above you completely misunderstand my undue weight tag. The point is that important critics need to be more present than less important critics. I have always suggested to expand Jerry Fodor and others. I welcome your decision to stop intervening in this article from an ID perspective and hope it's easier now to get a NPOV article that deals with the argument for what it is: philosophy, not biology.--Student of philosophy (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a misuse of the concept of "undue weight" and you've offered no evidence in support of the relative prominence of the viewpoints of particular critics as you allege. And, frankly, this slant on what you mean by undue weight doesn't ring true when viewed in the context of your edits that have repeatedly minimized or eliminated critical views you don't happen to agree with. For example, Sober and others presented in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics have received far more exposure, and hence "prominence", than have the various authors presented in Naturalism Defeated?, a relatively obscure volume in comparison, one whose ultimate level of scholarly exposure has yet to be determined.
..... As to another of the things you just said here, I'm not, as you say, intervening, and, I will be back to-- well, heck, go ahead call it "intervening" if you wish. Bye, for now. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a misuse, it's directly what the tag is used for. I just read the NPOV policy. Your claims about the world of philosophy are completely uninformed. A volume with essays by Plantinga and Fodor (both among the most important philosophers alive according to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2005)) as well as Merricks and Alson is obviously not an "obscure volume". The Pennock anthology does not contain an answer by Ruse and is certainly not the first adress for philosophers. Other answers have been published in important philosophical journals and are of course more important for the philosophical community than a book about ID. Thus is has clearly been shown that Ruses answer is relatively unimportant. And its equally clear that the ID part has too much weight at the moment. Hence the undue weight tags.--Student of philosophy (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Ruse cites to Plantinga's EAAN, and he's not the only reliable source to have noted Plantinga's frequent alterations of his arguments in support of "theistic evolution" and its close relative "intelligent design" as well how closely they're intertwined once one gets past the superficial summary arguments. Gotta go. Bye, for now. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the link to theistic evolution seems rather obvious, Plantinga himself mentiones in the argument that theistic evolution does not raise the same problem as naturalistic evolution. I wonder who else besides Ruse noticed a link between EAAN and ID, because I have not seen anybody else writing about it.--Student of philosophy (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion to all concerned is: "be patient." Rather than argue the toss as to who is, and who isn't, a substantial contributor, go ahead and include relevant RS material. In my view, the article is too young to argue the due weight issue, or to worry about whether it appears "scrappy". I'd suggest the problems will resolve in time with minority commentators eventually being "snowed under" by the significant players in the debate. Only at that stage, I think, can all editors enter in on a meaningfully discussion as to who is, and who is not, a minority commentator.

As it stands, it seems to me that the assumption of good faith has been abandoned, with the result that the talk page is being swamped by discussion about editorial motives rather than article content.

To SofP in particular: may I suggest you focus on adding the material you've been talking about rather than arguing the toss regarding Ruse? Personally, I think that discussion is unproductive - particularly as those who don't have a close familiarity with the literature on EAAN have no context in which to assess significance. If you feel you have substantial material to contibute, but other editors are improperly deleting it, I would invite you to enter it in a new section on the talk page where we can discuss its merits. Would this not seem a productive way forward at this juncture? Again, patience is the key. -- Muzhogg (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're propably right Muzhogg. It seems the discussion leads nowhere right now. (There might be a minor improvement though. Not a long time ago some of the editors used to claim that EAAN is a straightforward argument against evolution.) I'll add Tooley's critique and Plantinga's reply next week.--Student of philosophy (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda and primary sources for the development of EAAN

Originally I only provided direct sources for the development of EAAN. Guettarda then requested secondary sources as well. I provided them and he then deleted all the primary sources. I think primary sources are of interest for anybody who wants to look up what they have written. They propably don't want to look the secondary sources up before they can find the primary sources. Also it seems he didn't tag all the primary sources as in need of secondary sources. Due to this there are now several sources missing entirely. I'd like to know Guettarda's motives for deleting useful content and other opinions on the matter. --Student of philosophy (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems Guettarda is now trying to delete actual content because he thinks it's an unimportant detail. It seems quite obviously useful for readers of the article imho. Any opinions?--Student of philosophy (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

During the editing of Guetterda and me the sources somehow got messed up. I'll provide the sources again once I'm home. Thanks to Guetterda for marking the missing sources.--Student of philosophy (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to join you in your edit-waring, but you really shouldn't be reintroducing incorrect information and ungrammatical language into the article. Guettarda (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What incorrect information are you talking about? I'll provide the sources again that got lost during your (I don't think I removed any sources) edits.--Student of philosophy (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In your reverts you re-inserted incorrect information. Did you not even bother to look at what you were reverting? Blindly edit-warring is a bad thing. As is inserting ungrammatical edits. After repeated blocks for edit-warring, you're still at it. I've asked you to undo your 4th revert. Your response was to claim that it was justified. I have no idea how to proceed with someone as disruptive and tendentious as you. Guettarda (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually that was your 6th revert (not counting the one by the IP). Guettarda (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems you have a hard time pointing out what information was incorrect. --Student of philosophy (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It stood tagged long before you were blocked. Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You accused me of posting incorrect information but never mentioned what was incorrect. I was asking you to provide that information.--Student of philosophy (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Over a week ago, in your blizzard of reversion, you re-inserted inaccurate information into the article - material that I had removed in part because it was inaccurate. Rather than revert you again, I simply tagged the inaccurate material you had added. At 20:25 on June 6, you acknowledged the problem, although you refused to take responsibility for your action, instead claiming that "sources somehow got messed up", which is a pretty funny way of describing what happened. It appears to me that you are claiming to be unaware of what you wrote in this very section. Guettarda (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's getting more and more mysterious. Now you claim that I admitted that I added incorrect information (or something along these lines?). And here I am, still believing I never added incorrent information. Please provide an exmaple. I know what information I added, but I don't know of any incorrect information. --Student of philosophy (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You admitted the problem in this very section. It's been tagged for over a week. And now you're saying you don't know what's going on. OK, fine. I'm done with this. Guettarda (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What incorrect information did I post? It seems like you just made up this accusations. Else it should be easy to point out what information was incorrect.--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:EAAN created/redirected

Hi all,

I got sick of typing "Talk:Evolutionary argument against naturalism, so created the page Talk:EAAN - actually, Talk:Eaan, it didn't capitalize the whole - which redirects here. I hope it's useful for those times you want to reference this page in your discussions.

Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's going to be deleted - talk pages of non-existent pages are speedy-deleted. Can't say I favour the practice, but that's the way it is. Guettarda (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh drat! Well, thanks for letting me know. I was going to ask, but figured I would find out soon enough... -- Muzhogg (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

An explicitly crude and unrefined approach

Let me start out with an analogy:

A Pure Mathematician states that, on the basic of a bunch of esoteric formulae that the probability of 2 + 2 equalling 4 is low or inscrutable. A Cro-Magnon man comes along and drags two stones out of his cave, then drags two more and grunts "four". The Pure Mathematician's supporters immediately offer the rebuttal that the Cro-Magnon man lacks a PhD in the right field of Pure Mathematics.

Who do you believe?

• It does not take a PhD in philosophy of mind to offer a possible explanation as to why the naturalistic evolution of (reasonably) reliable faculties is both probable and entirely scrutable (a point that, AFAIK, is not under dispute within the sciences). An evolutionary biologist, or a philosopher of science dealing with evolutionary biology is quite clearly well-qualified to do so.
• Likewise it does not take a PhD in philosophy of religion to point out that the probability of divine creation of these faculties is itself inscrutable (particularly given that at least some religions posit less-than-perfect creators and/or creations).

While criticism of the EAAN from within the paradigm of philosophy of mind should be included, WP:DUE weight should also be given to more practical criticism from WP:RS experts outside that paradigm. If Plantinga did not want to grant evolutionary biologists (and philosophers of science working on that field) the right to criticise his work, then he needed to drop the "E" from "EAAN". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If I understand your analogy correctly, your arguing (roughly) that an observational result always trumps an a priori argument. So my question: what observational result are you appealing to to demonstrate, contra EAAN, that naturalism is true? -- Muzhogg (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A passing comment based on some of the critiques of EAAN – on an empirical basis, methodological naturalism is always "true" to the extent that observations are accurate and replicable, hence correctable by repeated observations. Philosophical naturalism isn't contradicted by any such "truth". Plantinga as a theist wants to give primacy to "revealed truth", and inflates observational error into a statement of the obvious, that theists think atheism is untrue. . . dave souza, talk 09:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The point of my analogy was not "that naturalism is true", but that the claim that P(N|E&R) is low or inscrutable is false. The observational result is that mental faculties are (to a considerable, though not perfect, extent) subject to natural selection, with the result of "a possible explanation as to why the naturalistic evolution of (reasonably) reliable faculties is both probable and entirely scrutable (a point that, AFAIK, is not under dispute within the sciences)" -- as stated above. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all a pretty funny game. If you get a chance, read Plantinga's reply to Ramsay in Naturalism Defeated? It's obvious that he doesn't understand natural selection. The whole premise of the argument is deeply flawed. But like Behe at Dover, he's uninterested in whether the premise of the argument is flawed or not, he (and many others, both his supporters and opponents) are simply focused on the structure of the argument. It's truly bizarre. Obviously we aren't required to follow them down the rabbit hole. NPOV requires us to provide all notable points of view, giving due weight, of course. Plantinga attributes his argument to Darwin and Churchland, so obviously the response of people outside of his narrow field are appropriate.

Another important point - this isn't an article about Plantinga. There are secondary and tertiary sources that address these issues. As it stands the article is "Plantinga versus his critics". That makes for a very poor article, and IMO is inconsistent with the intent of Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's largely a 'growth pains' issue. It wasn't too long ago that there was virtually no critics' views in the article, and it was easiest to collect by critic and/or published work. As the number of works & critics increases, it starts to make more sense to categorise thematically & choose among the sources who presents a specific criticism most lucidly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hafrn: you miss the point of my remark. I'm merely extending to you the same advice I gave to SofP in respects of whether Ruse's contribution is "notable" - if you have WP:RS material to put on the table that has relevance to the article, then please put it on the table.

Guettarda: Analysing structure is what Analytic philosophy is all about. And it's useful for the simple reason that without valid structure no argument - whether based on true premises or not - can be considered valid. I can appreciate that it may seem wierd to avoid the truth of the premises, but it needs to be understood what's happening here - it about analysing whether one is arguing according to the rules, not about whether one is starting from the right place. Which is why analytic philosophers generally allow the truth of even the wierdest premises ("we are brains in vats") in order to see what follows IFF (= if and only if) the premise is true. That said, I extend the same invitation again; if you have WP:RS that demonstrates the flaws in Plantinga's premises, then please put it on the table. -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Notability is a guideline for starting articles, not a standard that must be met to include every POV on an already existing topic. The standards for inclusion of material in an article are the core content policies WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and the core procedural policy WP:Consensus, along with any other more specific policies as might come into play. When we refer to something as "notable" in the context of including a particular aspect of an already existing topic, we're ordinarily using the term informally to designate "relevance" and "weight". As an editorial matter, anything reasonably relevant to the topic may be included, and also should ideally be reasonably in keeping with other editorial guidelines such as using basic WP:Summary style (though this is a guideline offering greater flexibility than a "policy"-- see Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Policy_and_guideline_pages).
..... The inclusion of critics such as Ruse, Sober and Fitelson is entirely appropriate use of secondary sources about Plantinga's EAAN, its direct offshoots, and his various closely related arguments that are seen by these critics as inextricably intertwined despite disclaimers from Plantinga and several of his philosophical allies. These critics of Plantinga are relevant, and "notable" in the sense that they are reasonably seen as deserving of a summary of their positions with respect to Plantinga's EAAN and its variations. As well, these published critical views are presented in the article in a fashion that is well in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Kenosis (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not "true" precepts, valid precepts. The argument applies pseudo-logic (see Fitelson & Sober, or just read the argument carefully yourself) to a topic that Plantinga obviously doesn't understand, and comes up with a "defeater". People then discuss how or if you can defeat the defeater. If this was an "iff" problem, it would be "iff you have an undefeatable defeater, how do you defeat it". That would be absurd. So people discuss whether the defeater Plantinga came up with is really impossible to defeat. Problem there is that it's only smoke and mirrors, he just pulled some a posteriori numbers out of his posterior. I suppose that's what it means to be a "leading philosopher"...no matter how inane your arguments, people will pretend they are worth debating, and debate them. Hey, publish or perish, right? Guettarda (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevance guys? The argument being put is that some theoretical defender of Plantinga is arguing that material should be ommitted because Grock the caveman doesn't have a PhD. My point is that (1) nobody has argued such a case; and (2) until the material is cited it's purely speculative debating it. Again, if you have something to contribute to the article, go right ahead. But don't expect me to argue with you about the merits of EAAN here. I don't come here for that purpose. -- Muzhogg (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevance? Yeah, I was responding to the comment you directed to me. True, I shouldn't have replied to you, but it's rather rich to say "what's the relevance of this" simply because someone is polite enough to reply to your comment. Guettarda (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for what was clearly an offensive remark - I didn't intend it to be. The reason for the "relevance?" question is simply this: I see the entire talk-page as currently obsessed with trying to re-stage the entire discussion in regards to EAAN rather than focusing on encyclopedic coverage of the discussion as it has already been conducted in the literature. We already have the Fitelson and Sober critique in the article. If you feel there's other material which merits encyclopedic coverage, then people are free to put it on the table - whether it supports Plantinga's position or not. What more do you want me to say? -- Muzhogg (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Muzhogg is certainly right in saying that this is not the place for a discussion about the merits of EAAN and I don't want to begin one. But I think it makes sense to comment on some of the claims made here to get a basis for further editing of the article.

• "on an empirical basis, methodological naturalism is always "true" to the extent that observations are accurate and replicable" Methodological doesn't make claims about the world and thus can't be true. It's an agreement on what counts as explanation in science. This makes it extremely hard to understand how someone could "conflate" methodological and metaphysical naturalism, especially if Plantinga defines the kind of naturalism he invokes. Obviously this is equally implausible for most philospohers as nobody else made Ruse's point.
• "It's obvious that he doesn't understand natural selection." The basic notion of natural selection is very simple and Plantinga explains it correctly. But as Plantinga says, all natural selection cares about is behavior. The question now is (even if epiphenomenalism is wrong) how true beliefs create behavior that is "better" in the light of natural selection. This question is not contained in the basic notion of natural selection and is changing as biology proceeds. I agree with Ramsey and Fodor that natural selection can actually promote true beliefs over false beliefs, but this is not a trivial thing and subject to change as more progress is made. It's also important to know that Plantinga explicitly states that categories 3 & 4 (where content directly influences behavior) is most likely not true on naturalism. Any critique solely concerned with those categories misses the main argument. In the main argument the notion of natural selection is not directly relevant.
• "Plantinga attributes his argument to Darwin and Churchland, so obviously the response of people outside of his narrow field are appropriate.". As Ruses states Darwin was arguing as a philosopher when expressing his doubt. And Churchland is a philosopher. So resonses from outside philosophy are not warranted by this fact. I agree that we can mention someone like Ruse, but he should be given due weight.
• "The argument applies pseudo-logic " There is no pseudo-logic in this argument. And afaik nobody claims that Plantinga made errors in logic (which would render EAAN invalid rather than just unsound). Maybe you're refering to the bayesian framework. It's a tough question whether Plantinga's use of this is justified and appropriate, but it's certainly not a question of logic.
• "a topic that Plantinga obviously doesn't understand" I take it that you're refering to biology here. As mentioned before biology has only a little place in the argument (categories 3 & 4) and even there it involves philosophical issues. The argument is mostly about epistemology and Plantinga is one of the foremost epistemologists.
• "I suppose that's what it means to be a "leading philosopher"...no matter how inane your arguments, people will pretend they are worth debating, and debate them." Not really. This argument has been developed before but never attracted that much attention. This argument is appealing to the most serious threat to naturalism (mind & rationality, something many philosophers agree with) and it's propably due to this that Plantingas careful formulation has attracted so much attention. It's worthy to note that several dissertations has been written since which defend Plantingas conclusion. Nobody who knows a little bit about the topics involved would call EAAN "inane". --Student of philosophy (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

--Student of philosophy (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Analytic philosophy

It's been put above that EAAN is Analytic philosophy, and essentially about analysing the validity of the structure irrespective of whether it's based on true premises or not. This seems to me to be an important point, if it can be sourced, and it should be clear from the outset of the article that it's a philosophical debate unconcerned with the truth of its premises and conclusions. The lead at present is woefully inadequate, and while I've modified it to avoid endorsing Plantinga's conclusions, it still needs to note that the argument has been criticised from various angles. By the way, it's not just analytic philosophers who allow the truth of even the wierdest premises ("we are brains in vats") for the sake of argument to see what follows IFF (= if and only if) the premise is true. That's standard science fiction, and in some ways Plantinga's case for unreliability of empirical research is well explored by FSM theory. . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You couldn't have misunderstood my remarks more completely if you tried. I was responding to the following assertion regarding Plantinga (and others);

he's uninterested in whether the premise of the argument is flawed or not, he (and many others, both his supporters and opponents) are simply focused on the structure of the argument. It's truly bizarre.

and I was merely pointing out that when philosophers focus on form of arguments rather than truth of premises they are engaged in some form of analytic philosophy.

It does not follow from this that the truth of premises forms no part of the philosophical discussion of EAAN, only that such discussion is not, strickly speaking, analytic philosophy.

Consequently, it's simply wrong to assert that that "it was put above that EAAN is analytic philosophy" - I said no such thing.

I am once again pleading: can we please move on from derogatory remarks about Plantinga in particular, the philosophical community in general, or the EAAN itself by either direct or indirect means - including the use of analogy (cavemen) or allusion (FSM)? If people have no encyclopedic content to contribute or discuss, or if remarks have no bearing upon the actual article (under which I include edit proposals based on ????), could they please refrain from making comments which can only lead to frustration and hostile exchanges.

Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My misunderstanding, so the truth or falsity of the premises is a valid part of the critiques of EAAN and it's reasonable to assume that Plantinga believes the truth of his arguments. Thanks for the clarification. The point remains, that the lead should summarise the arguments against EAAN, or at least point to them, as well as outlining its claims. . . dave souza, talk 22:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

See below (new thread) - I must have been adding this while you were responding here! Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion

Please note that this is not a forum for the general discussion of EAAN - it is a place to discuss matters pertaining to the quality of the article.

Due to the nature of recent discussions, I have lodged a report at Wikipedia editor assistance and would advise all editors to inform themselves of this material before proceeding with further off-topic remarks.

If the term "off-topic remark" is ambiguous, then please aquaint yourself with the following;

1. Point 4 under Wikipedia is not a forum
2. Wikipedia talk page guidelines
3. The fact that the principle "Wikipedia is not a soap box" applies to talk pages, not just articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzhogg (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note the new tag added at the top of this page which advises that off-topic discussion will be deleted. There is ample precedent for doing so - see particularly WP:TPO.

I intend to seek a third-party editor to review the contents of this page in order to delete/archive any inappropriate material, and I will, in future, show no hesitation in enforcing a policy of deletion of inappropriate discussion.

Thank you for your cooperation, -- Muzhogg (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Article lead

Dave souza has proposed modification of the article lead and I largely agree with his remarks concerning the adequacy thereof. At the time of this post it reads;

The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) argues that the combination of evolutionary theory and naturalism is self-defeating on the basis of the claim that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then the probability of having reliable cognitive facilities is low according to Plantinga's calculations. The argument was proposed by Alvin Plantinga in 1993. Plantinga's proposition is "rais[ing] issues of interest to epistemologists, philosophers of mind, evolutionary biologists, and philosophers of religion".[1]

Clearly we are going to have to work to make the lead NPOV, to offer a balanced representation of the claims made by supporters and opponents, and to deal very carefully with the connection with scientific issues and ID theory. We also need to include some brief overview of the primary concepts involved. With those issues in mind, I would propose the following rewording;

First advanced by philosopher Alvin Plantinga in 1993 the "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" (EAAN) is the argument that theories of evolution which assume naturalism (defined here as the view that there is no god) give no account for the emergence of human rationality, and therefore it is irrational to advocate naturalistic forms of evolution.

Critics have argued that the argument relies on a problematic assessment of prior probabilities and that it takes inadequate account of empirical findings in evolutionary biology.

Attempts have been made to link the argument with advocacy of Intelligent Design and it has been claimed that the argument is an attack on evolutionary theory itself. Whilst certain ID supporters have appealed to EAAN in support of their own anti-naturalistic claims, Plantinga has responded by asserting that the EAAN does not serve an anti-evolutionary purpose.

Perhaps because of the broad sweep of its claims, impinging as it does upon evolutionary biology and philosophy of mind, and given Plantinga's reputation in fields of epistemology and philosophy of religion, the EAAN "raises issues of interest to epistemologists, philosophers of mind, evolutionary biologists, and philosophers of religion".[1]

I think this fairly represents the EAAN itself, along with what has been "claimed" and "argued" in regards of same. I trust it is sufficiently neutral to at least provide the basis for a new article lead.

I note, however, that any resolute critic would be able to object that some elements in the proposed lead have no supporting citations, either in the lead or in the article itself. I have included them because (1) I think they are fair representations of the state of the discussion; and (2) I hope that supporting citation may yet be found.

Such elements might actually be unallowable, to be frank, but the aim should be to find supporting citations rather than reject outright what I think people will recognize as "common knowledge". I suggest that where there is no supporting WP:RS but the claim in question is considered to have merit, the claim can be removed to an issue specific thread on the talk-page - not to make it the topic of unsubstantiated WP:OR discussions, but so that editors can be reminded of the need to deal with the topic in an appropriate way.

So while there may be contestable elements in the above, I hope the overall structure of the above is about right, and that at some future time even the constable elements might be put beyond doubt. I only note in closing that we are putting the cart before the horse somewhat. In theory, at least, the lead should summarize the body content - which itself is a long way from taking on a "final" form.

Comments? -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

One proposed tweak to the above;

Whilst certain ID supporters have appealed to EAAN in support of their own anti-naturalistic claims, Plantinga has responded by asserting that the EAAN does not serve an anti-evolutionary purpose."

becomes

Whilst certain ID supporters have appealed to EAAN in support of their own anti-naturalistic claims and Plantinga himself appears to favour an ID position, Plantinga has nevertheless stressed the EAAN does not serve an anti-evolutionary purpose and that it is compatible with theistic accounts of evolution."

My guess is that this will need a couple of supporting citations - the claim re TE can be supported from Plantinga's Biola lecture whilst "appears to favour" seems warranted by appeal to the bio-material. This seems to give due weight to all available data, I think?

-- Muzhogg (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no. The whole "while X, Plantinga says Y" is SoP's OR. Many IDists say that they are not opposed to evolution, merely to "naturalistic" evolution. Outright denial of evolution is limited to a fairly small portion of the creationist movement - even many YECs endorse a form of evolution (baraminology, for example, assumes rates of evolution that dwarf most scientific estimates). Guettarda (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

<ec> Some good points there, particularly the issue that by "naturalism" Plantinga means "the view that there is no god". Is that statement in the earliest fomulations of EAAN? In the first paragraph outlining Plantinga's argument, it would be good to give a little more explanation of his argument, and "give no account for the emergence of human rationality" seems inaccurate. As I've read it, the basic argument is that "evolution theory views the brain as evolving with the aim of survival and reproduction rather than perceiving ultimate truth, and so an atheist thinks human perception is unreliable, while to a theist God has created humans in his image implying that humans share divine awareness of ultimate truth and so they believe their belief is truth." The first part is perhaps more important, a better paraphrase would be appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing - standard practice is to begin the opening sentence with the name of the article. "The XYX is..." Guettarda (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The question that really matters is - do we want to follow WP:LEAD and have the lead be a brief summary of the article, or do we want to start with a good lead, and use it as a model to rebuild the article? Guettarda (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the Belby quote from the lead and put it into the section on the book which Belby edited, Naturalism Defeated?. Here's the diff. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis: was it you I had an edit clash with? If so I think I won!!!! Can you repost?

Guettarda: I acknowledge that there are some problematic issues in the relationship between TE, ID, and creationism with respect to who accepts how much evolutionary theory and etc, and thus that even a rank YEC can fudge on whether he accepts "evolution". But, respectfully, the claim I put didn't depend on SoP's OR. Indeed, to turn the tables, the claim that this is a case of "while X, Plantinga says Y" falls on the obvious point that "while X" is your own OR for which you have provided no WP:RS. Who says EAAN an argument against evolution? What's your WP:RS? If you have one, put it on the table, if not then let's please get back to specific discussion of the literature and/or article contents;

I've offered a synthesis of what seem to me four quite easily demonstrated facts; (1) that certain ID theorists have "adopted" EAAN; (2) that Plantinga is sympathetic to ID; (3) that Plantinga denies that EAAN is an anti-evolutionary argument; (4) that Plantinga acknowledges that a theist may rationally believe in forms of evolution guided by God (re Biola lecture) - Which of 1-4 are you objecting to, and on which basis? And if your claim is that EAAN is an argument against evolution ("while X"), then what's your WP:RS?

Dave souza: Very, very good comments, I think - but I'm too pushed for time at the minute to offer a substantial response by way of rewording. The "survival" vs "rationality" issue certainly merits inclusion, IMHO. I'll have to leave you guys to hash it out amongst yourselves for the next little bit. Play nice :) -- Muzhogg (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"[My] own OR"? What are you talking about. If you have some problem with me, and you aren't willing to discuss it with me on my talk page, I would recommend dispute resolution.

• "while X, Plantinga says Y" falls on the obvious point that "while X" is your own OR for which you have provided no WP:RS. Seriously? I wasn't the one who introduced the link into the article. And yes, the link is supported by reliable sources. Pennock and Forrest are about as reliable sources as one could hope for on ID-related issues.
• Who says EAAN an argument against evolution - Wow. You ask an off-topic question, and when I answer your off-topic you go on about "this isn't the place for that". I'm not dumb enough to fall for that ploy twice.
• And if your claim is that EAAN is an argument against evolution - please stop putting words in my mouth. As I said before - if you have some problem with me, and you aren't willing to discuss it with me on my talk page, I would recommend dispute resolution.
• I've offered a synthesis of what seem to me four quite easily demonstrated facts - please see WP:SYNTH. Taking "four quite easily demonstrated facts", and connecting them in a novel fashion, is against policy. So we can't do it here. No matter how many false attacks you sling my way, synthesis isn't allowed, whether SoP's initial stuff, or your new phrasing. Guettarda (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guerrarda,

I wasn't going to come back today, but I had a brief lull, and I'm glad to say I caught this sooner rather than later.

Can I assure you that there is NOTHING personal going on here? Please forgive me if I have shown a mammoth misunderstanding of your position - I clearly have said some things which simply don't come even close to accurate and I apologize. It might be better for now if we leave this alone and try to stear this in a more positive direction.

In that vein, I think your question about the order in which we process this is a very good one. My suggestion would be that we perhaps work on formulating a working plan for the article - based perhaps on the revised lead above. How about we forego revising the lead, and instead work on constructing a provisional outline for the article. That way we can all raise what we feel are the substantial issues, whilst still keeping a lid on the OR issues?

Can I suggest we divert this thread into a discussion of the direction we would like the article to take?

If I can close with only one procedural/policy observation: WP:SYNTH is specifically aimed at preventing editors from drawing conclusions on the basis of synthesis, not on preventing multi-point sentences. Using the term "synthesis" was poor form on my part, but I meant only that I had "put together" four points (1), (2), (3), (4). I did not draw a conclusion ("therefore (5)") and the WP:SYNTH objection is therefore misplaced.

-- Muzhogg (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, "synthesis" is precisely what you're trying to do - take what you see to be similar ideas, and connect them in ways that go beyond the sources. Guettarda (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk specifics. Which of the following claims, specifically, do you see as going beyond the sources;

1. Certain ID supporters have appealed to EAAN in support of their own anti-naturalistic claims
2. Plantinga himself appears to favour an ID position,
3. Plantinga has stressed the EAAN does not serve an anti-evolutionary purpose
4. Plantinga has stressed that EAAN is compatible with [[Theistic Evolution|theistic accounts of evolution

Further, what is the "synthetic" conclusion to which you are objecting? Note that we're discussing nothing other than potential wording of the lead - I'd invite you to propose an alternative if you feel the above is inadequate. -- Muzhogg (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets see. #1 twists the facts. "For their own claims" suggests that they do so against P's intention. Unsourced and POV. #2 is also spin. Plantinga "appears" to be in favour. Does not reflect sources who identify him as an important player in the movement. Juxtaposing #3 with #1 creates the impression that Plantinga has distanced EAAN from ID. That not only creates a novel synthesis, it's also misleading, since other IDists have used the same sort of language to describe ID. So unless Plantinga is specifically speaking of ID, the juxtaposition is at best novel synthesis. At worst it's just plain misleading. Finally, throwing #4 into the mix further confuses things. Some people use TE in a sense that's nearly synonymous with ID. Others consider it the enemy of ID. So again, throwing that statement into the mix, sans context, is likely to mislead people and comes across as novel synthesis - putting meaning to the words that may not have been there when P said them. Guettarda (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As a trivial remark: the lead is never "sans context" if it accurately reflects the content of the article.
On #1: I wouldn't think it contentious that ID adherents have appealed to EAAN in support of their own position: e.g. Gordon, Bruce. L., "Is Intelligent Design Science? The Scientific Status and Future of Design-Theoretic Explanations," in Dembski & Kushiner (eds), Signs of Intelligence, Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2001. p.214 esp. n.4.
On the other hand, I made no claim about Plantinga's intention here. Why, precisely, am I being asked to provide sources for a claim I never made? If you want to make a claim about Plantinga's intent then you provide the sources, otherwise leave claims about Plantinga's intention out of it.
On #2: It may well be that Plantinga is strongly in the ID camp. But the only information I have on the matter is the material so far placed in the article which at most implies his involvement. If you have credible sources that demonstrate the comment should be stronger, I'd again urge you to put them on the table, and we can reword the claim to something stronger.
Actually, now that I think about it, I should probably point out that I've already contested the bio information specifically because it really only establishes "guilt by association" - the very fact that I even allow the inference to stand is pretty generous, in my estimation. But, again, sources, sources, sources.
The comment about the juxtaposition of #1 and #3 I'm not sure how to process. It's hardly my fault if two correct comments - both supportable from the literature - lead to a conclusion that some find unpalatable.
On #3: this would be supported by appeal to precisely the same source one would cite in favour of #4 - i.e. if Plantinga has specifically stated that EAAN is compatible with evolution (and he has) then I take this as clear statement that he has denied that it is anti-evolutionary. I do recognize, however, that "he has stressed it doesn't serve an anti-evolutionary purpose" is poorly worded. But it would have been easier if you had offered an alternate wording as per the entire point of this thread, rather than imply I'm trying to downplay the strength of his remark. Mea culpa.
On #4: this is an easily demonstrable comment by Plantinga - his lecture at Biola concludes with the observation that a traditional theist (i.e. Jewish, Moslem, or Christian theist) "may indeed endorse some form of evolution; but if she does, it will be a form of evolution guided and orchestrated by God." Whether this "confuses" or clarifies things is a moot point. What's not at issue is that he said it.
Any unsourced remarks about Plantinga's "intent" are entirely inadmissable. We really can't deal with what he might mean - we can only deal with what he actually said. Even if his remarks are incoherent, it's an incoherence the article will have to reflect.
Again, you are invited to offer a wording which you feel better represents the situation - that is what this thread is all about, after all. -- Muzhogg (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

RE #2 and #3: The main issue isn't whether Plantinga denies evolution. What he argues against is evolution by natural selection. He's arguing that evolution could not bring about life that possesses "content" without supernatural intervention, This is completely at odds with the present understanding of all branches of biological science. And, it is the same view held by the majority of the ID advocates and with which Plantinga plainly declared himself in alignment, at least for a number of years. If we're going to expand the lead from its present form, the fact that there are scholarly critics who raise this very basic objection to Plantinga's position ought be briefly noted right up front in the lead, so as to start the article right off in an NPOV manner. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Please reply to what I actually said.

• I wouldn't think it contentious that ID adherents have appealed to EAAN - I never said that it was.
• I made no claim about Plantinga's intention here - I didn't say that you did. I said that your statement suggested (as in, "could be taken to imply") something about "[c]ertain ID supporters.
• Why, precisely, am I being asked to provide sources for a claim I never made? - Your statement implies certain things that are not supported by sources that I am aware of. So if you want to leave that implication in the statement, it needs to be supported by a source. If you don't intend to make that implication, then you need to change the wording.
• If you want to make a claim about Plantinga's intent then you provide the sources, otherwise leave claims about Plantinga's intention out of it - I'm not making claims about P's intent. I'm saying that your statement makes implications about P's intent that aren't there.
• It may well be that Plantinga is strongly in the ID camp. But the only information I have on the matter is the material so far placed in the article which at most implies his involvement - it's useful to read the archives of the article talk page, to learn something about the topic.
• It's hardly my fault if two correct comments - both supportable from the literature - lead to a conclusion that some find unpalatable. It isn't a matter of what I find "palatable", it's a matter of what policy permits.
• [I]t would have been easier if you had offered an alternate wording as per the entire point of this thread - it's not about the wording. I don't contest the statement, or the wording (though it leaves a lot to be desired). My point is that juxtaposing the two ideas creates an association between them that is unwarranted, that is unsupported, and that appears to be novel synthesis.
• Whether this "confuses" or clarifies things is a moot point. What's not at issue is that he said it - Again, read WP:SYNTH. At least read the first line of the section: Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. That's all I am asking - that you adhere to policy. That's my only point here. If you don't accept this policy, then change the policy. Don't argue with me. Try Wikipedia talk:No original research. Not this page. Not here.

Guettarda (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Point taken about synth, and phrasing to avoid novel implications is essential. In principle these are valid aspects of the subject which should appear in the lead and should be fully supported by citations, with care being taken over the exact wording. This discussion is useful to achieve these improvements which can also lead to improvement of the article structure, and contributions to this discussion with that focus in mind are welcome. In my experience it's been useful to float ideas for wording to stimulate thought, and ideas should be taken in that spirit. A useful focus could be the point made by Kenosis that Plantinga is arguing that evolution could not bring about life that possesses "content" without supernatural intervention, in a way consistent with ID but completely at odds with the present understanding of all branches of biological science: has a source made that point? . . dave souza, talk 15:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually EAAN argues that without supernatural intervention, you have no good reason to assume that evolution would have produced reliable cognitive faculties. In other places he conflates this with "beliefs", but in the argument as he outlines it in the intro to Naturalism Defeated?, it's merely "cognitive faculties". So it's correct to say that EAAN isn't an argument against evolution. It's an argument against "naturalism" (which he defines roughly as the belief that there are no gods or god-like supernatural beings). Guettarda (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The most precise statement I've encountered by Plantinga is from his Biola lecture where he states that a theist can accept a form of evolution "guided and orchestrated by God." But I know of no specific claim by him that he rejects Natural Selection, nor that evolution requires Divine Intervention. I'd have to see sources to agree to anything more than the very vague claim just put (i.e. the vague claim by Plantinga re "guided and orchestrated by God"). -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The WP:SYNTH claim has been referred here for resolution. -- Muzhogg (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your proposition seems to be a sensible way to express what is going on with Plantinga, EAAN and evolution. I think having this in the lead allows us to get rid of the problematic "EAAN, Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution" paragraph and with it the offtopic biographical material about Plantinga and the suggestive paragraph about EAAN in Pennocks Anthology.

I think this sentence is rather problematic though: "Plantinga himself appears to favour an ID position". This seems to suggest, that he is not only sympathetic to the overall approach of ID or some of its arguments (he'd share this with some atheistic philosophers like Bradley Monton) but rather embracing certain conclusions concerning the way evolution happened. I can't find any source for this in his writings. On the contrary, in his essay Evolution and Design he even suggests that god could use completely unguided evolution as a mean to create humans because of his foreknowledge. Evolution of that sort couldn't be told appart from naturalistic evolution with any amount of empirical investigation and is thus 100% compatible with anything modern evolutionary biology claims. Does anyone have a suggestion for a more cautious formulation of this sentence?--Student of philosophy (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

It seems that both Plantinga's arguments and that of his critics are pretty much all over the map, making difficult the task of summing them up in the lead. Perhaps a brief expansion of the lead would be appropriate? maybe building on the second paragraph of what Muzhogg proposed, e.g.:

Critics have argued that Plantinga's arguments rely on a problematic assessment of prior probabilities, take inadequate account of empirical findings in evolutionary biology, and conflate methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

Or something to that general effect? ... Kenosis (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, there's promise there, but it doesn't capture the breadth of the criticisms. I got as far as this yesterday before becoming stuck:

The evolutionary argument against naturalism is a controversial argument against the idea that there are no gods or god-like supernatural agents. It was proposed by American philosopher Alvin Plantinga in the early 1990s. The argument consists of two parts – the "probability thesis" , which makes the case that in Bayesian terms that the probability of having reliable cognitive faculties is low, given the combination of naturalism and evolution, and the "defeater thesis" which suggests that the probability thesis provides a defeater for belief in naturalism.

"Controversial" follows Omar Mirza's 2008 article "A user’s guide to the evolutionary argument against naturalism".

Both the probability thesis and the defeater thesis have attracted substantial criticism; I couldn't think of a way to address that without being overly vague. But listing the basic categories of criticisms sounds like a workable approach. Guettarda (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Promising, would suggest "against the idea..." should be "against philosophical naturalism, the idea...." and the ending would be "for belief in philosphical naturalism". If Kenosis's idea forms a second paragraph that could be rephrased as "conflate atheistic metaphysical naturalism with the methodological naturalism which is an essential part of the modern scientific method and takes no view on the truth or otherwise of religious teachings." . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis: on the original "all over the map" comment - this is one of my biggest problems with the entire issue! Trying to give due weight to every point of view in its proper order is going to be a nightmare. One remark on "controversial" - I wonder if it might not be better to reword; "a controversial argument" (which is almost a given in philosophy!) to "an argument which has raised great controversy" (which is not a given)? -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with it either way. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed: relevance of biographical material, problematic OR

Kenosis misunderstood the point of my "dubious" tag so I'll add an explanation here. Right now much of the material concerning EAAN and ID is either OR, irrelevant biographical material or suggestive off-topic material. I think Muzhogg agrees with this to some extend. Here is what I think is most problematic:

• The Ruse statement is a simple assertion by Ruse without further sources or primary sources. Secondary sources without primary sources can be taken as either unreliable secondary sources or just primary sources. Both is problematic and should be replaced with something better or simply removed. I suggest to add a primary source where Plantinga actually does what Ruse claims he does.
• The biographical material on Plantinga is out of place. The only way it could be relevant is by establishing a "guilt by association" conclusion. The "guilt of association" idea is OR since it is no WP policy.
• The inclusion of answers to EAAN in an anthology about evolution and ID is based on the same interpretation. The author assumes that anything mentioned in a book with a certain topic establishes a relation between the thing and the topic that is worthy of being mentioned in wikipedia. Of course this is wrong and there are clear counterexamples. But even if it would be true it would still be OR. This has to go also.

--Contributions/194.124.140.39 (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see {{Dubious}} - what indication is there that the accuracy of the statements is in doubt? Guettarda (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a tag for OR or Off topic statements? I couldn't find a more appropriate tag. --Contributions/194.124.140.39 (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

But why tag at all? You tag a section like that when you have a dispute that can't be resolved, not as a starting point for a disagreement. Please make your case first. Then we can discuss it. At present, all but one of the active editors on this page seem to agree that this material is at least somewhat relevant. If you disagree, you need to make a case for your position, rather than simply asserting it or sticking tags into the article. Guettarda (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Muzhogg has made the point more than once and I have made it too. Other editors seem to disagree. I think this is enough for a dispute tag. I agree that 3 editors stand against 2 in this issue, but the only arguments the 3 editors put forward involve OR. This is why I'm making the case again in this new topic. But there are other more detailed cases in other topics. --Contributions/194.124.140.39 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What point are you saying that Muzhogg made? What specific changes are you proposing? And what's the rationale for your changes? Guettarda (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And now that you're finally unblocked, are you planning to clean up the mess you created last time? Guettarda (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See the topic of discussion here for answers to your first question. I suggest to remove the entire paragraph about ID, Evolution and EAAN and add Muzhoggs suggestion for the lead instead. I think this is the most neutral version and doesn't involve unwarranted source interpretation or OR.

(btw, I didn't remove the proper primary sources. It seems you're confusing me with someone)--Student of philosophy (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

<ri>OK, so you're proposing that the entire section should be removed. That was not clear from what you said above. Now: on what basis do you believe that the section should be removed? (I'm puzzled by your parenthetical comment as well. You said: I didn't remove the proper primary sources. It seems you're confusing me with someone. You (a) did remove "sourced material", but more to the point (b) I don't see anyone talking about the removal of sourced material. So, what the heck are you talking about?) Guettarda (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought pointing out that something is OR or violates WP policies makes it rather obvious that I suggest better sources or removal. As for the basis of the claim, I suggest you read the very first entry in this topic. It gives you a good idea about the arguments. Similar arguments can be found in the last comments spread over other topics. This is why I opened a new topic here.

(You mentioned causing a mess. My guess was that you were refering to the missing sources. But how am I supposed to know what you're refering to with your vague accusation.)--Student of philosophy (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

False attributions

Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy of the project. While unsourced statements are bad, statements that are incorrectly attributed to sources are far worse. Not only do these statements fail verification, they are also deceptive and misleading. It's no big deal to mess up a citation, but it's totally unacceptable to knowingly attribute statements to sources that do not support the claims. Guettarda (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that I added correct sources and then someone "tweaked" them and messed them up. Now the proper sources are lost. I'll fix the sources again and suggest people refrain from ruining them.--194.124.140.39 (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Guttarda removed correct and properly sourced information once again. James Jordan and William Hasker argued against determinism with a similar argument as is mentioned in the source. Also he removed the formatting of the paragraph. I suggest he fixes his mistakes.--194.124.140.39 (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The issues isn't one of how the problem happened in the first place. Whether it was your mistake or "someone messed them up" is beside the point. The point is that you re-inserted claims that you know are incorrect. Guettarda (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Which one would that be? Please post exactly which information and why it isn't correct. Thanks. --Student of philosophy (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm done with your tendentious nonsense. If you're going to insert citations, you need to make sure that they support the statements they're being used to support. Making false claims as to the content of sources is unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

They actually do. The burden of proof is on your side and so far you failed to show where there is a problem. I suggest you provide that information now or stop making arbitrary accusations.--Student of philosophy (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

context tag

i think the lead is abrupt, and needs an introductory paragraph. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

?

The lead says that according to his calculations, the chances of naturalism developing cognitive facilities like ours are low. sounds about right. 4 billion years of evolution, and here we are: one intelligent species out of trillions. i would say he has given evidence for the truth of evolutionary theory. and to keep this on topic: the lede needs to be rewritten, to put this idea in the broadest possible context. and he should not be quoted by last name as if he is an established figure in the field, before introducing him as an established figure in the field. cart before horse. ill try to think about it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)