Talk:Conflict thesis/Archive 1

Andrew Dickson White
I came across this because of a conflict over Andrew Dickson White. It seems to me that this article is very emotional and NPOV; historical thought is not even attempted to be understood and placed in context, but is judged on the basis of a few recent (and, after all, also not particularly 'canonical') works; the language is polemic rather than scholarly as well. Too bad, really, because the substance is not wrong. Perhaps someone detached can look at and edit this. Clossius 08:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you see as emotional? I will agree that there is very little context, but if you look at the history, you will see it is a stub and only about 24 hours old. If you have some context, your contribution would be welcome, and if you have some language you think would be more neutral, please suggest it. Lindberg and Numbers have been collaborating on this topic for some time, and their work is what I would consider canonical on the subject. There are older works that give different interpretations of science-and-religion, like Merton, but L&N are among the first to address themselves directly to the history of the concept of conflict. Along with JB Russell of flat-earth fame. Maybe I do not understand what you mean by "canon" either. Maestlin 09:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, it is more like 2 days old, but still... Have you read White BTW? If not you should, then you would learn what emotional, POV, polemic, unscholarly writing on the subject is really like. Maestlin 09:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that "it has come to be regarded as false by historians" is emotional,


 * Would you approve of something like the rewrite ragesoss has made on Andrew Dickson White?


 * Sure.


 * that "It retains great popularity among nonspecialists, and it is sometimes found in popular works on the history of science" is dismissive and patronizing,


 * At this point I am afraid there is no way I can rewrite this that you will not see as a problem, so I will ask if you would do it instead. The underlying idea I was trying to communicate is that full-fledged conflict interpretation may still be found today from time to time, but it is not at all likely to be found in the works of someone with academic credentials like history-of-science or science-and-religion-studies.


 * I'd simply say this neutrally, such as "It is still popular with a general audience" or something like that. In the current context, it seems to me that "nonspecialists" and "popular" are meant as dismissive, and I'm not wrong, am I?


 * that teh quote by L&N, which I indeed don't regard as gospel truth or even as a particularly successful book on the subject - and it is only one -,


 * I don't look on it as gospel truth myself, but you tossed out the word "canonical" and I guessed it might mean something like "a work you have to cite." What do you mean about canonical? What would you point to as an example in this subject? Would you consider it (or any book) gospel truth? Would you consider it successful? And what, BTW, does "successful" mean here? A bestseller? influential? accurate? something else?


 * Standard - you were right in guessing what I meant. And no, I would not consider any book gospel truth. ;-) (And I would not consider L&N successful, but that's indeed a matter of judgment.)


 * which claims that "White's impressive documentation gave the appearance of sound scholarship" is, both in the book and as a quote here, entirely polemical. I think it is very obvious that the prupose of the article is, contrary to that of what an encyclopedia article should do, not to understand and explain, but to criticize - while there is a section called "criticism", already the descriptive part is negative.


 * I pulled out that sentence because I wanted to get in the idea that Draper was widely read in the short run, and explain why he was being mentioned even though Prometheus does not carry his book (or didn't last time I checked), but I just didn't feel like putting a lot of work into it at the time. I can definitely see how the entire quotation is not a good idea here. What if it were cut to something like "because [of] White's impressive documentation. . . ." (ellipses would be put in the article; I'm not trying to be deceptive on this talk page)? I think it's worth mentioning the citations. Since it's something that has been mentioned to me more than once, I think readers see it as important and it explains part of the book's ongoing success.


 * What I am objecting to in this quote is the gratuitous remark, "impression of scholarship", which means that it is not really scholarship. I don't think, however, that the Warfare is a polemic dressed up with fake quotes, but that it is the result of genuine, serious scholarship. The earlier versions, manuscript, White's letters, etc., clearly show that. Whether it was successfully done or not, or whether it convinces today or not, is an entirely different question.


 * And the worst part is that there is no contextualization; any good history of science would try to understand what the role of the conflict thesis was at this point in time (and place), and what it accomplished then.  Any good history of science realizes the context of science and science discourse, and an interpretive model like this cannot be simply dismissed cavalierly as "false by today's standards", which is perhaps the least interesting you could say.


 * There is almost no content of any sort at the moment, which is why it is marked as a stub. This was a "to-do" on the history of science wikiproject. I decided that it would be better to put up a little bit and give other editors something they could modify by bits, instead of spending months trying to write up a full-fledged article on my own. Yes, there should be some context for the 19th century authors. Yes, I planned to get to it someday, if nobody else did, but to do a decent job would take time and research for me because I don't know all that much about the era. It sounds like you have something pretty specific in mind. If you do, would you consider either writing it up or naming some relevant readings?


 * Nothing specific, but I fully accept your reasoning as regards the stubbiness of the article. The reason I commented at all is because I got here via the White entry.


 * Furthermore, you may also wish to consider why exactly White is still read today - there is obviously an interest in this kind of book precisely because the "enemy" seems to be, or actually is, still there - at least in certain parts of the world, and of certain countries. I wonder how one can understand interpretive models of science if one doesn't realize to which question they form the answer.


 * It is because' White is still read today that it is relevant to evaluate the quality of his scholarship in modern terms. Many readers of this article may have ideas about historical events drawn from the conflict model. The conflict model has an ongoing life, as you say, so a part of the article will be oriented towards current interpretations. Not to do so would, IMO, make the article irrelevant.


 * Not irrelevant, but "merely" historical, I'd say. ;-) But after all, I agree with you that the CT is still relevant and that this should be addressed here, and along the lines to say - only in neutral, and (as) objective (as possible) terms that take into account what is relevant when. After all, the reason you don't like the conflict thesis seems to be more one of degree than of principle, i.e. it wasn't as bad as White says it was.


 * That also explains why White was POV by your standards (and by mine as well), but he wasn't a Wikipedia author, but wrote a book that by the standards of his time was certainly good scholarship in documentation, that fulfilled a specific role, that had a demonstrable impact, and that strangely enough continues to draw attention today.


 * When he started the project, it may have been good scholarship, but by the time he published the final book? Wasn't the study of history in America copying the German model by that point?

Yes it was, and he of course was a very Germanized scholar; all his serious studies were done there, his academic-administrative merits are mostly in the adaption of the German university model for the US (Cornell, Stanford, Johns Hopkins etc.), and he was in close contact with the leading German historians of his time. And I think the Warfare is a very German book indeed - a dash late, perhaps, but still not out of place at this time.


 * And to answer the ad hominem rhetorical question: Yes, I have read White, the Warfare as well as his other books, and much of his papers. Not that this really matters, because the issue here is simply that of an encyclopedic contribution. Clossius 10:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I made a deliberate effort not to sound ad hominem, but I guess it didn't work. It was not a rhetorical question, and the conditional clause was genuine. Yes, things like that can matter. If you think I am being hostile or insulting to you, I will remove myself from further discussion, because it is not my intent. Maestlin 00:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Come on, in such a discussion you can't ask me whether I have actually read the book in question (of course I have!) and expect that I don't at least draw attention to the fact that this is an ad hominem remark in the very sense of the word (not about the argument, but about the person making it). Under the circumstances, I think the discussion here is still very civil, though, and I'm not insulted, especially I guess because I've actually read the book. ;-) Clossius 06:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

To keep this exchange simpler I will just copy from above:


 * I'd simply say this neutrally, such as "It is still popular with a general audience" or something like that. In the current context, it seems to me that "nonspecialists" and "popular" are meant as dismissive, and I'm not wrong, am I? (Clossius)

To me they are not dismissive. I used the phrase "popular works" deliberately, keeping in mind Cooter & Pumphrey's contrast between "science popularization" and "popular science." I tend to agree with their general point that what a lot of people do and think about science has nothing to do with what the "experts" think; if it does bear some relation, then popular use of the "expert's" work may be quite creative. A parallel with the study of history was in the back of my mind, and I take that nonspecialist audience quite seriously. But if it sounds dismissive and patronizing to you, it could strike other readers the same way.

I do feel a bit frustrated with the whole exchange, because you have criticized the sources mentioned and given me the impression that you think there are better ones, but refuse to name any. Maestlin 20:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Maestlin - I've followed your invite and paid a visit to this page. The article seems to be a discussion about what one or two authors have argued.  Shouldn't it be more about the nature of the conflict thesis itself?  How about a section listing all of the major disagreements between Science and Religion over the past 400 years?  This would perhaps be more helpful than analysis of some authors views, and let people see what the conflict thesis is referring to.  I'll happily start compiling a list if you want.  This could then be expanded from a list to some useful information about these debates? Adrian Baker 23:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Maestlin on this one. I don't see anything "emotional" in this in the slightest, and don't think that pointing out that non-specialists are thought to be totally wrong on this by specialists is any more of a problem here than it is in science articles. Anyway, of course it could use some additional information, but that's the nature of all new articles. I don't see any substantial, much less substantiated, criticisms in the above. And I think Adrian's idea about listing conflicts completely misses the point, would be completely inappropriate for this page, and would border on original research. --Fastfission 01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I second the opinion that a list of "major disagreements" between Science and Religion would be inappropriate to an article like this one, (that is mainly about Historiography). Maybe a list of "major agreements and disagreements" could be made in another article.


 * In addition, I think this article was more accurate before it’s introduction was changed in response to Clossius' complaints. To simply say that "many" historians of science and related academics no longer accept the conflict thesis is an understatement. I don’t know any contemporary historian of science that agrees with the warfare model, and many of them are actively working to show that this view was wrong. --Leinad ¬ [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|18px]] »saudações! 02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That may well be, but whose problem is that? Can such an article really be the playing-ground of a sub-group of one scholarly discipline's current fashion, if indeed it even amounts to this? Especially if we consider such statements as "actively working to show that this view was wrong", which implies both that it is necessary to do so and that this is more of a 'political' issue than anything else. But suum cuique, and I have the impression that it really doesn't help to argue here, let alone cite. Clossius 04:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this article should be the "playing-ground" to historians of science. I also don’t think that the article about dualism should be the "playing-ground" to philosophers, or that the article about genetics should be the "playing-ground" to biologists. Yet, in all of these articles, to ignore the specialists and make original research is nonsensical.


 * Ad-hominem attacks towards scholars will lead nowhere. Maybe the expression “actively working” has a stronger meaning than I originally though, (I’m not a native English speaker). But, even then, I don’t think it suggests what you say it does. --Leinad ¬ [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|18px]] »saudações! 07:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Original research wasn't required, but a fair representation of scholarly literature while keeping in mind the relativity of one's own position... what amazes me most in this entire context is that historians of science, who first of all should be aware that their view is very likely to be overtaken in very short time, are so insistent that right know we know precisely, and with finality, what's going on. I think that if anyone is the victim of ad-hominem attacks against scholars, then it's Andrew D. White. I really don't get what's so wrong with some moderate, scholarly language. Clossius 12:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * None of the historians of science here have argued that they know "what's going on" -- they have all argued that they know more or less what the current expert opinion on this is. Now you can throw around empty phrases like "the relativity of one's own position" all you want (hey, I'm fine with it), but in the end the approach sanctioned by WP:NOR is to have Wikipedia serve as a summary of the secondary literature. It's an interesting epistemological experiment and we could all write books on what model of knowledge it implies or condones but in the end that's the policy. --Fastfission 04:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is only what constitutes an expert, and that is completely unrelated to NOR. But if "the relativity of one's own position" is an empty phrase (I really wonder how many historians of science would agree with that; I don't know many), and especially if it is unimportant to talk about science models in the context of their times, rather than to judge them from today's (sub-disciplinary) perspective, then indeed enjoy, but it's neither science nor is it anywhere close to state of the discipline. Mind you, I don't think the conflict thesis is valid one bit, but I see the logic of it at its time and as claimed by the people who did claim it, and I think some of the basic books, such as the Warfare, are valid contributions to scholarship, even if I now think that they are "wrong" in the sense that they do not give me an interpretive framework that is correct. That is what I think a good Wikipedia article on this subject should reflect; that is an approach that is in line with what I see my colleagues arguing in the history of science context, and that is where this article here was going, via compromise, until... well, one can see above what was happening. Clossius 05:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Going back to Adrian Baker's comments, I agree that the explanation of the conflict thesis itself does need to be expanded. The article hasn't really gotten past Draper and White (I guess those are the two authors referred to), because we have been trying to hammer out the best way to talk about White. A list of all major conflicts between science and religion over the past 400 years would require us to define, first of all, what qualifies as a "conflict." A representative (not comprehensive) sample of incidents associated with the conflict thesis would, I think, be appropriate and would help the article. A few more examples of modern-day conflict (or perceived conflict) like the creationism debate might be added to the "support" section. I hope that everyone here agrees that conflict really does happen sometimes....

I have no problem keeping the wording to "many historians of science and related academics no longer accept the conflict thesis" or something similar. I think it is a reasonable approximation of reality, and it would allow us to move on to creating real content for the article. Anyone interested can always revisit the issue down the road. Maestlin 19:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Conflict between science and religion? Of course it never happens! (just kidding :-P) While I still think that the original introduction was more accurate, I'm ok with the idea of moving on and let these adjustments to be made latter. In the above discussion, I agree with many of Clossius generic thoughts about what should make a good article. However, I don't think this article's introduction was failing to meet such criteria. . . . The idea regarding a sample of incidents associated with the conflict thesis may be a good complement for when the article gets larger, but right now I am more interested to see here the historical context that originated the conflict thesis and related issues. There is no place in Wikipedia where one could get such information yet. Anyway, the decision about what to write first is mainly in the hands of each editor. Keep the good work! --Leinad ¬ [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|18px]] »saudações! 22:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Improvements
The warfare thesis is a good start but I think it can be beefed up. It's fascinating for at least two reasons. It's still widely accepted by the general public though overwhelmingly rejected by historians of science since probably the 1950s who now view the works by founders White and Draper as historical mythologies. And despite being almost laughable to history scholars (such as when a fictional novel is used as a historical reference), those works continue to have a strong influence in skeptic circles. Carl Sagan, for example, can be seen quoting White in COSMOS. There are lots of sources available about this.

The epistemological thesis sounds too apologist. It's claims should be footnoted more thoroughly and it should have some discussion of its proponents and important texts on the subject.Professor marginalia 00:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at, say, the mostly religiously motivated lack of acceptance of evolution and support for conjectures like Intelligent Design or even Young Earth creationism, and the attacks on science from those camps, I don't understand what exactly is laughable about the warfare thesis. Religion boasts unchanging truths, and there are many examples where it has been directly at odds with free inquiry and thought. Certainly, if you think that the thesis is laughable, you should present good evidence. All the current article has is some wishy-washy talk that it's "more complex", which I don't really see as diminishing the main point.
 * The epistemological thesis isn't apologetic, it should just be clarified. –Fatalis 12:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: epistemological conflict thesis
I can't find:
 * epistemological conflict thesis in google print, and there are only three references on google, all on wikipedia. Is it really a term? It maybe Original research, not recognized by scholares at all. I removed it to talk, and contacted the anon:

Here is the original:
 * The epistemological conflict thesis is of greater normative import than the historical conflict thesis and holds that the respective epistemologies of science and religion make them incompatible and competing world views. Its proponents maintain that the fideism of religion and the scientific method of science are rationally irreconcilable.

Here is my dumbed down version:
 * Today, the epistemological conflict thesis is of greater importance than the historical conflict thesis. This thesis states that the beliefs of science and religion make them incompatible and competing world views. Its supporters state that the faith base of religion and the scientific method of science cannot be  reconciled.

Also:


 * There is another possible conflict thesis, according to this conflict thesis (which can be called the "Epistemological Conflict Thesis"), the conflict between science and religion is epistemic. By virtue of their radically different epistemologies (knowledge by faith, revelation, and authority in the case of religion, and by reason, evidence, and skepticism in the case of science), the thesis brings into question the idea that scientific and religious worldviews are reconcilable.  The epistemological conflict thesis is not dependent of the historical conflict thesis in that the truth of one has no bearing on the truth of the other; the epistemological conflict thesis may be true and the historical conflict thesis false, or vice-versa.

It was added by anon 152.19.192.202

T (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Popular views
I placed a POV tag on the section about contemporary popular views, because I think the section is essentially an argument claiming that popular views are incorrect, without a meaningful description of what those views are. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Masonic views on science
It does seem fairly accurate to say that many Masons have promoted the idea that religion and science are totally incompatible and utterly irreconcilable. In the conflict thesis, Catholicism is singled out as incompatible with science, while Islam, Judaism and Protestantism are not. When you read the thesis, the debate on Religion vs. Science almost plays out in the same way as Catholicism vs. Freemasonry, just like in a Dan Brown novel. ADM (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources verifying the existence of these views, let alone demonstrating that they have sufficient prominence that they need to be given WP:DUE weight in this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Jay Gould
Stephen Jay Gould is not a science historian. Travb (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Gould was not a formally trained historian of science, but he did research and write about the history of science to some extent. In any case, he is not called a historian, he is just used as one "contemporary view" of the historical conflict thesis.--ragesoss 02:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading some of these books on google books, I realize that wikipedia is not alone in calling him a historian scientist. Travb (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What is not being said here is the fact that marxism supersedes this entire, uh, debate (Gould more or less was a marxist, as probably are many who are involved in this thing). And of course both the religious and the bourgeois liberal sides to this argument would deny what I've just stated -- but that's why this whole struggle over the nature of Reality exists in the first place. However, this doesn't make it any less objectively true. But try reasoning with the Religious.
 * :-D


 * Pazouzou (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

James Walsh quote?
I do not believe that the Walsh quote should be in this article. There is a clear bias in his work, seeing as it is dedicated to the Pope. While his point may still be valid, I think another quote, if able to be found, would work better. Cheapy (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's OK, given that it's an historical quote, presented as an example of an opposing POV. Of course, if there is an alternative quote available, we can always consider it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig Feuerbach
Surprised to see no mention of Ludwig Feuerbach in this article... is that an omission, do you think? Andrewa (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Repetition of a contention does not convince
This article, along with the article on Andrew Dickson White, repeatedly suggests that modern historians of science do not agree with the Conflict Thesis any longer. "'The historical conflict thesis... in its early form is mostly discarded.' '...founded entirely on mistaken notions.' '...growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought.'" Those suggestions are not at all supported by any material, let alone discussion, in the article. I'll suggest mere denigration of the CT and the repeated supposition of its displacement is not adequate. What discussion supports the position of 'modern historians' (WHO? WHAT? WHERE?)? If the CT is indeed to be a clay pigeon, the authors are using shells with no shot!! If science and religion have become as cosy as this article suggests -- but does not show -- perhaps it's because "modern science" -- fat with grants and hyperexpensive toys and no longer fighting for survival as it did in the 19th century (contrary to this sophomoric thesis) -- has become as conservative, dogmatic, heterodox as religion. No? Pray, tell. Or step down. Twang (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

An Article Proving the Thesis; Religious Apologists at Work
To even call this a "thesis" is ridiculous. The proof is irrefutable, and all one has to do is actually read the work of White to obtain an extremely thorough, 700-page map of the evidence. It is a common practice of religious apologists to try and undermine facts and evidence by labeling them with terms that imply equivocality, such as "hypothesis" or "thesis." Nonetheless, religion has proven itself a consistent foe of science, as we continue to see in modern-day debates over stem-cell research and the teaching of evolution. This notion is maintained in the "popular view" because there is no sustainable argument against it.


 * You consider a work containing such serious historical revisionism as the Flat Earth Myth to be "irrefutable proof"? No, the reason such a widely academically rejected view remains popular is because most people who espouse it are not historians of science.75.155.241.13 (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoever has been editing/monitoring this page has an evident agenda; however, it is one that supports White's conclusions. 75.70.99.101 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I share your sensitivity to the danger of POV-pushing by religious apologists, I want to point out that the issue is not at all as clear-cut as you suggest. Please see Talk:Religion for a recent lengthy discussion of the issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There are historical examples of conflict, but (secular) historians of science now agree pretty widely that the relationship between science and religion has varied widely in different historical contexts and that a model of inherent conflict is misleading; there are plenty of examples of of scientific and religious institutions reinforcing each other, and many more of them co-existing more or less "in peace".--ragesoss (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can buy that there has been fluctuation and exceptions to the overall rule, but that's not really how it's presented in this article. As it stands, the impression given is that it was crazy to ever think religion opposed or obstructed science in any way, that White's historical references are all bunk. And that's simply not true. He presents a LARGE number of valid, well-supported examples of what took place. So even if we want to contest the "thesis" as a whole, let's not make it sound like his individual examples are inaccurate and his scholarship a waste of time to read. 205.170.134.65 (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Please suggest specific edits that would address that concern. I, for one, am quite open to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we need more specifics as to what White (and Draper) argued for in their books.


 * I own White's, and in it he methodically addresses origins of the universe, origins of the human species, geology/geography/age of the earth, astronomy/Galileo, archeology/Egyptology/anthropology, history, meteorology, chemistry, physics, modern medicine/germ theory, psychology, linguistics and mythology -- all while illustrating the resistance put forth by entrenched Christian organizations. If White's detractors think Christianity did more to HELP advance these areas of knowledge than to OBSTRUCT them, I want specific examples, not vague generalizations like "most scholars have abandoned the conflict thesis." What 700-page books were published showing all the ways Christendom promoted the overthrow of its own dogmas?


 * Because the ways in which hard sciences and religion disagree are relatively well known, I think the best way to strengthen this article is to share the philological/linguistic/textual analysis facts that White addressed in his final couple chapters. The general public is less aware of them, but they are facts -- ones which Christianity has at time acknowledged but currently seems to be suppressing. The subject is how dramatically the oldest extant manuscripts of biblical stories (both those in Hebrew and those in Greek) differ from the translated bibles the churches built their theologies on. If one grew up on the King James bible, one grew up on an error -- perhaps an intentional fraud. People who can read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek have known this for AT LEAST 150 years, and translations like the New Revised Standard Version utilizes the oldest, most trustworthy texts.


 * Often, White refers us to the works of Matthew Arnold who, although best known as a poet, wrote on the developments of bible-text analysis. Let's utilize White's extensive footnotes and list the names promoting the research (like Matthew Arnold's) and the works written by Christian clerics opposing it. Then people can check them out from their local library and see if White was wrong about claiming a consistent conflict between science and religion.

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/works.html  Biblical works are near the bottom. 205.170.134.65 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Two suggestions. First, please be more specific about what the edits to the page would be, ie, change "words, words" to "words, words." Second, please consider the writings by more recent historians of science, discussed at Talk:Religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As for me, I don't own a copy of White's book, and have no comment to make on its weaknesses or its strengths. I notice, however, that the article as it stands quotes extensively from White's critics, but not from White himself. Why not? Surely if White is noteworthy enough for old and new criticisms of him to be presented in such detail, then a reasonably detailed presention of his actual views on this topic, containing quotes from him, would be appropriate. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll second that emotion. Twang (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What I'm getting out of the article is that the so-called conflict thesis is wrong because religion supports science whenever the findings of science happen to support what suits the interests of religious leaders and lobby groups. That doesn't do much to undermine the thesis of an intrinsic intellectual conflict; in fact it rather proves the point, by supporting the idea that faith, dogma and ideology are incompatible with science – that's the conclusion that makes sceptics persist in holding the thesis. Just as even a stopped clock is right twice a day, scientific findings and religious biases sometimes coincide accidentally, or one can be made or interpreted to fit the other (religions have a tendency to adapt themselves opportunistically to changes in society in order to survive, but at the same time playing down or outright denying that fact). Big deal.
 * In fact, this reminds me a lot of how nationalists like co-opting science as long as it suits their needs and biases, will support it and proudly trumpet their co-operation with science, but will rally against whatever scientific work does not fit their ends and purposes. Ultimately the same thing, and nationalism and religion are often intertwined. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Popularity
Cut from intro:
 * The conflict thesis has been a popular historiographical approach in the history of science ever since its inception in the Enlightenment.

I was going to {fact}-tag this, until I realized that neither the popularity nor the Enlightenment origins are mentioned in the article body. I assume therefore that there is no evidence for either, or I'd ask for it.

We might want to provide a little more about the motivation of those advancing the conflict thesis - or perhaps give examples of evidence they provided. This would provide a splendid contrast with critiques of those examples, and would help explain to readers why the conflict thesis is no longer accepted by (Western?) scholars.

But if it still has modern adherents, who are these people if not scholars? I'm constantly hearing from various sources that the Medieval Christians opposed the scientific method and "that's why they believed" the flat earth idea. I spent a lot of time developing our Myth of the flat earth article, and I think I have shown that hardly any modern scholar or historian accepts the centuries-old canard that Medieval Christians believed in a flat earth; this is not WP:OR on my part, but rather showing a balanced and neutral view of what modern scholarship says: opponents of Christianity simply made it up (this is the modern consensus). --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This article along with all the other pseudo-science "flat earth myth" articles are absolute garbage. Putting this in a Encyclopedia is a sad joke. Classic deny the deniers attacks. Galileo and Darwin were welcomed and helped by the Church, lol, please... Lipsquid (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

UNDUE weight in the lead
I removed the criticism of the conflict thesis from the lead. There are many leading scientific minds who do believe that the conflict thesis is alive and well. This article in and of itself is a pretty good example. It is fairly one sided with only the view that the conflict thesis is debunked, which it isn't. 50% of all Americans say Religion and science are often in conflict so by definition, the idea that it is debunked is UNDUE and probably FRINGE  http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/22/science-and-religion/   Lipsquid (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The Pew Study you cited is very clear: People’s sense that there generally is a conflict between religion and science seems to have less to do with their own religious beliefs than it does with their perceptions of other people’s beliefs. Less than one-third of Americans polled in the new survey (30%) say their personal religious beliefs conflict with science, while fully two-thirds (68%) say there is no conflict between their own beliefs and science. Moreover, the view that science and religion are often in conflict is particularly common among Americans who are, themselves, not very religiously observant (as measured by frequency of attendance at worship services). Some 73% of adults who seldom or never attend religious services say science and religion are often in conflict. By contrast, among more religiously observant Americans – those who report that they attend religious services on a weekly basis – exactly half (50%) share the view that science and religion frequently conflict.


 * As it says clearly, most religious people themselves do not see conflict between their beliefs and science, usually it is those who are least religious or least exposed to religion that have the conflict view. Mayan1990 (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree and since most non-religious people do see conflict, saying the thesis has been disproven in the lead is very heavy undue weight. I will expand on the article with other views. Lipsquid (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The article does not say "disproven" across the board. The lead only mentions that in popular imagination the conflict view does exist (this is true), but it also notes that educated researchers who specialize in the history of science overwhelmingly reject the conflict thesis (this is true). There are numerous options available besides seeing this as a simple conflict view (complexity thesis and also the independence thesis, for example).Mayan1990 (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus among historians of science
Concerning the recent edit, it is not really vandalism, nor did I say such a thing. However, the lead should contain some points from the article including the fact that the consensus of historians of science is that the conflict thesis has been discredited by modern research and emergence of more scientific primary sources. Considering that this article quite involved in the history of science and religion and the conflict thesis was proposed in the 19th century only to be discredited in the 20th century is notable.

Even the majority of scientists in elite universities in the US do not hold a conflict view.Mayan1990 (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please http://www.forbes.com/asap/1999/1004/235_print.html http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/1100/1/J_Worrall_Science.pdf http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/religion-and-science-_b_2719280.html Lipsquid (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Stanford and Stenger sources are reasonable. Why not develop a section in the interior of the article that cites them? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I was going to, I started from the top and got reverted. I will try a bottom up approach and change the lead at the end. This article is garbage in its current state. Lipsquid (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Might be good to avoid inflammatory descriptions. Just saying. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an encyclopedia. Random opinions, including mine, don't matter.  All opinions are equal mentality is the bane of this project, but I know what you mean.  Lipsquid (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course there are some people and vocal scientists that do have a conflict view (even thought there isn't much evidence for it based on historical and modern studies - which is why it has been so extensively criticized and rejected), but it is incorrect to not note that the consensus among historians of science is that the conflict view has been discredited and replaced by other alternate views. Also even the majority of scientists at elite universities in the US do not hold a conflict view . In fact even the National Academy of Science supports an alternate view that science and religion are independent . The article of course should note such facts.


 * The article does have sections where there are studies from academics and also many studies on people's perceptions on the issue that show complexity rather than conflict as being the norm. There is room for growth. Just approach the issue in less inflammatory way.Mayan1990 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course science and religion are independent areas of study, I am not sure any sane person would argue otherwise. That has no bearing on whether of not they are sometimes in conflict and the answer is they area sometimes very heavily in conflict and other times they get along just peachy. Age of the earth, climate change and evolution are ongoing conflicts, to say there is no conflict and it has been disproven makes no sense.  Lipsquid (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also compare how the nonsense in this article read compared to other Wikipedia articles about the conflicts between religion and science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-creationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism


 * Well, from your source from Pew does show that climate change is not related to religious views: "Still, on a number of other science-related topics, there is no independent effect of religious affiliation or frequency of church attendance on public attitudes, once differences by demographic background, educational attainment, science knowledge level and political background are taken into account. These include opinions about:...Climate change". It also notes that very few issues in science overlap with religious beliefs: namely human evolution and the creation of the universe (of course a small fraction of all sciences and not really enough to substantiate conflict with science overall).


 * In fact, the report explicitly says there is even a decline in conflict views among the religious: "Among those with a religious affiliation, 34% say their religious beliefs conflict with science, down from 41% in 2009. The perception of conflict is down among most major religious groups, including white evangelical Protestants (from 52% saying their own beliefs conflict with science in 2009 to 40% in 2014). Perceptions of conflict among black Protestants have stayed about the same, however." Even among the non-religious (aka "religiously unaffiliated" which do have religious beliefs despite them not having a religion) it says: "Among the religiously unaffiliated, 16% say their own religious beliefs sometimes conflict with science while fully 81% say they do not."


 * Still, though there are very few areas where science a religion interact, it is worth noting that "secular" have had their "conflicts" with multiple fields in science for example see Suppressed research in the Soviet Union. Just an FYI.Mayan1990 (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems that much of this discussion has less to do with the historiographical thesis of the historical conflict between science and religion than it does with the discussion of the relationships between science and religion. Much of the material raised here could be profitably dealt with in that article.

A useful perspective would be to discuss the views of the two main groups advocating an essential conflict between science and religion, the New Atheists of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et al. and the fundamentalist christian view exemplified by the Intelligent design movement. These two advocacy groups seem to represetnt highly influential fringe movements within the broader scientific and religious communities.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with the article is that it is overrun with one of the "fringe" views you mentioned and has no commentary for the other fringe view. Deny the conflict ever existed is a standard apologist argument.  The difference between this and other similar science-religion conflict Wikipedia articles is stark (as in the examples I gave above). Lipsquid (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve, actually the relationship article you mentioned already does have stuff on Dawkins, Hitchens and other fringe advocates, though not much on intelligent design. On this article it may be worth noting some modern advocates of the fringe conflict view? It would be difficult because many do not write about "conflict view" per se, but an "incompatibility view" which is not necessarily synonymous with the conflict view. Mayan1990 (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears from your comment that you do not distinguish between fundamentalist Christians of the intelligent design variety and serious academic historians of science or religion. If you can't / won't recognize that substantial distinction, I don't see how we can have an intelligent conversation. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course I understand the difference, why do you think I have been complaining that most of the article quotes fundamentalist Christians? In fact, that is the only thing I have complained about and as I said before, the bias in this article is stark when you compare it to other religion-science conflict articles. Lipsquid (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And I would add that the article has Christian blinders and ignores current issues between Islam and science and has no commentary about Buddhism or Hinduism and Science. So I think it is the article itself that is missing the nuances and distinctions. Lipsquid (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

said that you understand the difference between serious historians and fundamentalist Chritians but are disturbed that "most of the article quotes fundamentalist Christians." There lies the problem. I read through the list of 34 references and found only 2 or 3 of the sources cited were by authors that could, by some stretch of the imagination, be identified as "fundamentalist Christians while most of them were by mainstream historians of science.

If you think fundamentalist Christians are being excessively quoted, would you please tell us who among those quoted you perceive to be fundamentalist Christians. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The conflict thesis is a historiographical approach
I recently restored the phrase that the conflict thesis "is a historiographical approach in the history of science". The concept that it is a historiographical approach has been present in the article from the earliest versions until this edit in May 2012. The concept that it is a historiographical interpretation was deleted in an edit that addressed the question whether this interpretation had been popular since the Enlightenment. Since it appears to have been an inadvertant deletion, I have restored it to clarify the original focus of this article.

Discussions of the modern relations of science and religion are, as I mentioned above, more appropriate to the article Relationship between religion and science. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This historical-only view clarifies many of my concerns regarding the article. Thank you for your edit and your patience.  Lipsquid (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad to help resolve were we seemed to be talking at cross purposes. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)