Talk:Joseph Richard Pawlik

POV discussion
This article is clearly based upon pawlik's view of his own significance. He's clearly notable, but that does not mean that everything he claims to support should listed here His view of what he is rying to accomplish is only what he chooses to say is what he is trying to accomplish, not what an outside observer would say.  DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This POV comment by  DGG comes in response to my edit to maintain explicit statement of critical rationalism in the article. I am an outside observer. The reason the article must retain the statement about CR is because many scientists intentionally avoid challenging others. Pawlik is distinct in that he routinely challenges ideas in his field. Any objective view of his work would yield that conclusion. How is that an inappropriate POV? Fossil21 (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

HS and college honors
 DGG has repeatedly removed HS and college honors from this page. Dr. Pawlik was Valedictorian of his HS class and graduated from college summa cum laude: these honors show a history of academic accomplishment, and that’s important in a biography about an academic scientist. However, I do not intend to engage in edit warring with  DGG so I have not reverted this edit. Fossil21 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Scientific debates
 DGG has repeatedly attempted to remove the first sentence regarding Dr. Pawlik's subscription to the philosophy of to critical rationalism in science. Pawlik identifies with this philosophy of science and encourages it in others. For Pawlik to be considered a proponent of critical rationalism, a third-party source is not necessary. No one would object to a sentence describing Dr. Pawlik as a proponent of Darwinism, just as no one would object to a sentence describing Pope Francis as a proponent of Christian Theism. In this example, each individual openly identifies as such and the actions of each individual demonstrate a clear subscription to the respective philosophy. If the sentence about critical rationalism were trivial, I would not undo its removal, but it provides useful context for understanding Pawlik's scientific debates. Fossil21 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it worth pursuing further, but I was trying to tone down what i regarded as an somewhat POV article.  DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)