User talk:Watchman21

Welcome to my talk page! Please keep things civil. Watchman 21

Uniformitarianism[edit]

Why do you keep deleting a valid opposing view which is cited from credible sources within the domain of cosmology? Cosmology ... is the study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientific laws that govern these realities. Understood that a number of philosophers have an opposing view of this topic to cosmologists, so surely the policy of WP:BALANCE should apply here. Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.154.126 (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In uniformitarianism, the term "natural laws and processes" concerns metaphysical ideas such as the ontology of time, physical determinism, the law of cause and effect, and direct vs indirect realism. It has nothing to do with scientific laws and processes (including the fundamental constants), which concern a posteriori knowledge. This article explains the difference between the two categories.

That is the reason why we have separate articles for the fundamental constants and uniformitarianism, and none of your sources mention uniformitarianism directly. Watchman21 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I suggest a link, maybe http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/ , in the opening sentence to make this clear, because by no means is the time-invariance of the scientific laws and processes an assumption any longer. The article is definitely exploited by people in debates, mainly creationists, to try to imply that the scientific laws may have been different in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.154.126 (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have to admit I am a bit confused since I cannot see what "ontology of time, physical determinism, the law of cause and effect, and direct vs indirect realism" has to do with geology and geological processes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.154.126 (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've not understood the reference, which is that "laws of nature" and "laws of science" are different things. That means you can't reference it as a basis to put your original research in the article because it argues against your original research's relevance to the article. It has nothing to do with the geological aspects of uniformitarianism. The article delineates the distinctions on this point. Watchman21 (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, I do understand your claim that "laws of nature" and "laws of science" are different things. I put a link in the opening definition to an article which talks about this difference (I hope the link is OK, if not perhaps you can provide a better one), because you claim that uniformitarianism is not about the scientific laws. Fine, OK, I can live with that. The thing that I still do not understand is that uniformitarianism first arose in the context of geology, and geology operates according to scientific laws, not "natural laws". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.154.126 (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to stay within policy, you need a description of uniformitarianism that mentions it directly, which the IEP article doesn't. Otherwise that counts as original research. I've replaced it with an inline commentary from one of the references already in situ. The article explains the distinction between geological gradualism and the methodological assumptions that we are talking about.

Just so you're aware, even if uniformitarianism concerned scientific laws as opposed to metaphysics, it would still remain an assumption. For your Steve Carlip thesis to prove the constancy of the fundamental constants, it needs to examine every event at every point in space at every point of time in the past. It doesn't do that. It merely makes an inductive inference based on what we can observe within the constraints of the tools and parameters of observation available to us. This is not the same thing as a proof. Watchman21 (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: For the umpteenth time the research done by cosmologists on the topic of the invariance over time of the physical constants, and therefore the scientific laws in which those constants appear, is not "my original research". The articles I link to have bibliographies showing which scientists have done the research. Why is this so difficult for you to accept? And why have you now changed your argument for rejecting my contributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.154.126 (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you make an inference from a source that you cite that is not stated by the authors of that source, that is against policy. In your source, the author does not mention uniformitarianism and does not proffer it as proof of uniformitarianism.

Let me clarify this point again, if there is any misunderstanding

Not original research: A concise, accurate summary of the contents of the source that you cite.

Original research: You citing the source as evidence for uniformitarianism, or its verifiability, which the source itself doesn't mention.

Watchman21 (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the term uniformitarianism is outdated, it is no longer in common use. This article in effect defines uniformitarianism as "the spatial and temporal invarinace of the laws", and that is most decidedly exactly what the quoted sources are all about.

Just so you're aware there is a huge range of level of confidence in something that lies between "proven fact" and "assumption". In order for something to no longer be merely an assumption all that is required is to gather an extensive amount of empirical evidence which supports it and none of which contradicts it. Whilst still not "proved" the postualte does become "accepted beyond reasonable doubt" when it is measured extensively and every single time the same result is found. It is therefore entirely possible for something to not be proved yet still not be a mere assumption. Your standard of " it needs to examine every event at every point in space at every point of time in the past" is not met by anything in science, and you would have a torrid time trying to convince anyone that gravity (for example) is an assumption. You need to find a different word, somewhere between "assumption" and "proved" in order to achieve a NPOV on this matter.

Does your source mention uniformitarianism? No it doesn't.

Your argument that the term is no longer in use is clearly false because it is referenced in contemporary peer-reviewed journals.

Policies against original research exist for a reason, and it's to prevent people who haven't been formally trained in the relevant subjects from degrading article quality by making erroneous inferences and conclusions based on half-knowledge.

Let's assume hypothetically that WP:NOR doesn't exist, and that we are talking about the inclusive definition of uniformitarianism (not just concerning metaphysics, but also including scientific laws) to explain why your reasoning is wrong, putting it as simply as possible:

The evidence that you give to verify uniformitarianism is an article that makes a weakly inductive claim based on the observation that some of the fundamental constants are invariable to the best of our knowledge in some limited domains of space-time.

Even if we allow for inductive or partial proofs of uniformitarianism, as you propose, this is insufficient for two reasons:

Hasty generalization: Invariance of a handful of fundamental constants is a woefully inadequate premise on which to induce that the thousands of metaphysical and physical laws that govern science behave the same way. In addition, the domain of the observable universe encompassed by Carlip's essay is infinitessimally tiny compared to the total expanse of space-time.
Circular argument: In order for Carlip to calculate invariance of these fundamental constants, he needs to first assume that the metaphysical and physical laws that underpin science have been constant throughout space-time. In other words, Carlip's induction only works if uniformitarianism is first assumed to be true. This means that you cannot use his study as proof of uniformitarianism, otherwise you are arguing in a circle.

Whatever rhetoric regarding "middle grounds" of justification you can muster against point 1 is ultimately pointless because the real knockdown to your proposition is point 2, which is irrefutable. That is the reason why no contemporary WP:reliable sources refer to inductive a posteriori evidence (such as Carlip's essay) to claim that uniformitarianism is no longer an assumption.

Their training in epistemology means that they understand that reasoning like this is fallacious. Watchman21 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim "In order for Carlip to calculate invariance of these fundamental constants, he needs to first assume that the metaphysical and physical laws that underpin science have been constant throughout space-time. In other words, Carlip's induction only works if uniformitarianism is first assumed to be true" is false. One only needs to actually look at the night sky, observe the stars, observe that they all work in the same way, realise that you are looking at them as they were in the past, and then realise that you see them as they were at different times in the past depending on how far away they are. Nevertheless you should try to remember that science doesn't work through confirmation/verification ... rather it works by falsification. Science does not attempt to confirm "spatiotemporal invariance of physical laws" but rather it looks at the inverse postulate "have the physical laws been different at any time in the past". So far, every single time that inverse postulate has been tested it has NOT been observed. Scientists have found no change in the physical constants (and hence the physical laws) every single time they have tested it. They have tested it now a considerable number of times in a variety of different ways and every single time the result has been "no change". Hence the evidence is that the inverse postulate is contraindicated. This is reasonable substantiation for the original postulate. This is as good as it gets with science ... and science works. Note that "substantiation" is not proof. Science doesn't claim proof (yet nevertheless it does work). It would seem that those "reliable sources" with training in epistemology have no clue whatsoever when it comes to physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.154.126 (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We've already addressed many of these points:

Observing the night sky is looking into the past, but this is not proof that physical and metaphysical laws have been constant while the light was in transit through space-time.
You're getting confused over Popper's falsifiability criterion, which simply states that, in order for knowledge to be scientific, it needs to be (in principle) falsifiable using empirical evidence. It does not state that science cannot verify non-universal propositions. See verificationism for the history behind this subject.

What you actually mean is that science does not deal with absolute proofs, and that inductive evidence is good enough to claim that the truth of uniformitarianism is "well-substantiated". Yet we've covered above why this doesn't work.

It is a hasty generalization: The invariance of a handful of fundamental constants does not imply inductively that all physical and metaphysical laws have also been constant. That is a scientifically and mathematically illiterate claim by any measure.
It commits the circular reasoning fallacy: The inductive evidence presupposes uniformitarianism, so cannot be used to support uniformitarianism in any way.

The bottom line is that all of this is against policy. To follow the rules, you need to find a reliable source that explicitly links uniformitarianism to Carlip's thesis, and so far you have found none.

When an edit is controversial, a consensus needs to be established on the talk page before it is included in the article proper. So far, no-one agrees with you on this topic, and at least three registered users, including two administrators ("Vsmith", and "Doug Weller") who are familiar with policy, openly disagree with you.

Your case for including this information in the article fails every criterion of inclusion. It is openly against policy, it is rejected by the consensus, it fails to understand the metaphysics and knowledge theory behind uniformitarianism. Even the scientific claims are shaky, being underpinned by hasty generalizations. Watchman21 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Lane Craig Talk Page[edit]

I thought you inputs there were very good. Your insight both into the ontological distinction between vacuum and nothingness and your comments on Grett's tenets were well thought out and grounded. I am sorry you received such a passionate negative response, there are those that take these discussions very personally. If you are interested, we are working to review this page through informal mediation and I'd like to propose adding you to that if you are up for it. Squatch347 (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your words of support. I'd be delighted to contribute to mediation (on the days that I can, at least).

What is the status on it right now though? It looks like there hasn't been much activity on the page over the past few days, and I understand one or two editors are complaining about the mediator being absent in the talks. Watchman21 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is definitely the case that the mediation moves relatively slowly, this is a seemingly contentious article and, I'm afraid, a lot of the philosophic approach to article writing wasn't addressed before we started so discussions have historically broken down based on fundamental, rather than technical issues. I'm not sure the etiquette (this is the first of these I've been involved in) of inviting people to these disputes, but it is where the updates to this page are happening (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Lane_Craig/Mediation). The next step I think is to move on to the section about the resurrection. I plan on posting an initial draft on Thursday, we can use that to start the conversation. Squatch347 (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, look forward to it. I'll see how things go from tomorrow. Watchman21 (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]