Talk:Steve Fuller (sociologist)

Writing style
at least in my opinion, the article is still somehow adulatory- it seems like if it were written by a fan.--Greece666 23:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree Greece666. I particularly laughed at this section : "Although in recent years he has taken up the mantle of Karl Popper, his style more recalls Voltaire in its wit, even sarcasm, and independence of thought".  How much more POV could this be?  I think many people would know who Popper and Voltaire were, but Fuller?  Admittedly they've got time on their side, but it's not obvious to me that an ID stooge like Fuller will be remembered so glowingly.  Anyway, I reckon we need to address the POV issues.  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree too: even after there have been some edits. What I've read of this guy's suggests he's a bit of an also-ran. ElectricRay 18:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. Somebody who blatantly commits the naturalistic fallacy, as quoted on this page, should not get to be a full professor of anything, not even sociology.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

-- I've changed the wording back to a "leading figure" just based on the CV and other informal soundings about Fuller's reputation. I realize that people hold it against him that he participated in the Dover trial, but I doubt that there is anyone other than Bruno Latour in Science and Technology Studies whose work is as widely known or has been translated as much. I'm not sure what else one could mean by "leading." User:Kate Bush


 * And I've reverted back: "Leading" is in intrinsically value-laden description, and i think must necessarily constitute a non-neutral point of view. You could change this by saying he has been "described as a leading figure by xxx" - which is a factual statement, and is acceptable - but otherwise the expression isn't suitable for a dispassionate encyclopaedia. ElectricRay 13:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the revert back.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Characterisation of criticism of support of intelligent design
I have tried to restore balance by granting that there has been substantial criticism of Fuller's position but much of it -- including Norman Levitt's -- is shoot-from-the-hip, back-of-the-envelope stuff. (Fuller has written loads AGAINST postmodernism, for heaven's sake!) Panda's Thumb seems to be given an enormous amount of authority here, but why? The lead guy, PZ Myers, is a minor player in biology who happens to enjoy a large peanut gallery of like-minded anonymous followers. The ratio of venom to refutation on his blog is too high to be generally trusted. Kate Lennox

I think it should remembered that the Panda's Thumb is a scientific blog, written by scientists about issues relating to Evolutionary Biology and the public Evolution-Creationism controversy. It is therefore not surprising that its criticism features a "lack of reference to anything in Fuller's writings other than quotes from non-academic sources," as such writers would not normally be familiar with his academic writings. To find criticism that does reference Fuller's academic writings, one would have to look at critics within the Sociology of Science community (and related fields). I therefore think that this sentence draws an illegitimate generalisation from this one example.

Additionally, I have problem with a 'Truth in Science' article being simply labelled simply an "eyewitness account" -- TiS has a strong YEC axe to grind, has been distributing ID material, and have a reputation for misrepresenting science to fit their agenda. It is not an unbiased report.

Further, why does the HOPOS-L link apparently log you in as Fuller's own e-mail address? This rather implies that this link was contributed by Fuller himself, which draws into question whether it was a representative "intellectually balanced discussion" of his work.

Are Fuller's views on ID widely accepted in the academic Philosophy/Sociology of Science/Science Studies community? Either way, this article should clearly delineate this point, or risk running afoul of the 'Undue Weight' NPOV policy. Hrafn42 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added some criticism of Fuller's ID testimony from within the STS community, as a rebuttal to a prior assertion that "A feature of this criticism is the lack of reference to anything in Fuller's writings other than quotes from non-academic sources" - implying that the criticism was uninformed. Hrafn42 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42 is right to put the published critical pieces, but he exaggerates the criticism from ‘the scientific community’. Has Fuller been censured by some scientific organization? No, basically a few mostly anonymous people have complained about him in blogs. Let’s get a sense of proportion about these matters. Hans Vaihinger
 * That's simply not accurate. PT is a group a highly respected biologist and a variety of other scientists. Furthermore, nothing on PT is anonymous, and posts are all made with substantial review. In any event, I've decided that most of the sentence is Original research and therefore it should only have the first sourced part, which is that there has been a lot of criticism of his testimony. JoshuaZ 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no evdience, at least that I can find from the PT website, that the contributors are 'highly respected biologists'. Most of the identifiable ones are pretty minor players, and some like Nick Matzke are primarily PR people for evolution who do very little, if any, science these days. Also to say that PT is 'reviewed' simply means they censor stuff they don't like. Anyone can see that PT's posts vary wildly in their scientific content and intellectual responsibility, more generally. It's ridiculous to regard such a website as at all representative of 'the scientific community'. You're the one guilty of Original Research -- talk about Newspeak! Could it be that you're one of the PT contributors???? Hans Vaihinger


 * SciPolicy Journal's amicus brief to the Dover trial
 * In the context of the trial, it is pretty clear that it is Fuller's testimony that they're talking about. And SciPolicy Journal is most definitely not a "science blog." I would suggest that some reference to the wider scientific community (beyond mere science blogs) be re-included. Hrafn42 01:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In the context of the trial, it is pretty clear that it is Fuller's testimony that they're talking about. And SciPolicy Journal is most definitely not a "science blog." I would suggest that some reference to the wider scientific community (beyond mere science blogs) be re-included. Hrafn42 01:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to Hrafn's comment, which handles the matter pretty well, I will respond to the issue of PT. Hans, you said that "There is absolutely no evdience, at least that I can find from the PT website, that the contributors are 'highly respected biologists'. Most of the identifiable ones are pretty minor players, and some like Nick Matzke are primarily PR people for evolution who do very little, if any, science these days" Actually, as far as I'm aware Matzke is the only person who primarily PR. You seem also to have some confusion about how PT functions. Everyone is identified who can start new threads- that's the relevant part of PT. The comment sections are not relevant for our purposes. Furthermore, if you were looking a bit harder you would find this list of contributors(which is slightly out of date since more have joined). However, the list includes Wesley Elsberry,a respected marine biologist, Tara Smith, an assistant epidemology prof at the University of Iowa, Andrea Bottaro who is an immunologist at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and Paul R. Gross who is undeniably prominent. Of the non-biologists, the list includes Jeffrey Shallit and Mark Perakh. I don't know what original research you think I've engaged in but I will point out that if you think that a basic Wikipedia policy strikes you as Newspeak, you will likely have a doubleplus ungood time adjusting to and working with other Wikipedia editors. Finally, your last comment that "Could it be that you're one of the PT contributors????" I don't know what you mean by that (again the list of contributors is easy to access) but it seems like you are attempting to cast aspersions and to imply that I have some form of conflict of interest. Let me therefore assure you that I do not(as you can easily verify by looking through the names of the contributors lise), and that continued such comments may constitute a failure to be civil. JoshuaZ 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anybody get access to the HOPOS-L listserver archives referenced, to confirm that they are (1) accessible and (2) are accurately characterised? I have registered with the underlying listserver (http://listserv.nd.edu), but have been unable to get into the archives after several attempts. Hrafn42 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've followed the HOPOS list for some time, and the characterization looks accurate to me. The tendency towards topicality, and the lack of much temporal distance from these issues means that, like on so many other articles, there is overemphasis on recent, controversial things and this leads to types of sourcing that, if not original research, at least border on it (synthesis of primary sources being the danger).  It's definitely true that Panda's Thumb has a number of respected biologists, but it is also an activist community and material taken from it should be interpreted in that context (as opposed to necessarily representative of the scientific community as whole, even though it often no doubt is).  However, I don't see a problem with JoshuaZ's edits or the current state of the Intelligent Design section; it looks like a neutral summary that points readers in the right direction without editorializing.--ragesoss 02:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I finally managed to get access to the HOPOS-L archives. My impression is that they're not particularly accessible, requiring:
 * subscribing to the mailing list;
 * a file-index command to the list-sever;
 * two file-get commands; and
 * reading through a flat file structure with numerous duplications and messages out of order.


 * As to the contents, it did not seem to be particularly fruitful, as it mostly amounted to Fuller and his opponents talking past each other. Is a fairly mediocre and inaccessible mailing-list discussion notable?


 * Also reading through this archive, and other discussions referenced from it, I got the impression that Fuller is frequently derided by members of the scientific community as being too out of touch with the practicalities of scientific research to have any relevance to how this research is organised. It seems there might have been some discussion on this point within Social Studies of Science, but it is in older issues that are not available without paid subscription, so I am unable to provide anything well-referenced at this stage. This would probably also link into the 'Science wars,' in which Fuller is listed as a protagonist (on the "postmodernist" side).Hrafn42 09:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice for someone who has easy link access to Fuller's own article in the Social Studies of Science issue that includes Lambert and Edmund & Mercer to cite it in this entry. (At least I can't access it.) Lambert, after all, is a graduate student working with the editor who in turn denounces Fuller in the introduction to that issue. (I'm surprised you Counter-Fullerians haven't figured that out yet!) I realize that Wikipedia has rather, shall we say, 'variable' attitudes towards the representativeness of opinion but the least you could do is to include something more from the man himself.

I also have to say that Hrafn42 must be either incredibly prejudiced against Fuller or blindly deferential to scientific authority. The fact that Sci-Policy may be making a veiled reference to Fuller's testimony doesn't mean that its characterization of Fuller is correct. Overall, I am struck by how parasitic this whole discussion has been on what other people say about Fuller when it comes to intelligent design and then generalizing from it. Why don't you try to provide some actual quotes from Fuller when he says things that are so heinously "postmodern" and "hostile to science?" Is it perhaps because you're not in a position to judge the matter first-hand?


 * Kate, seeing as you are throwing stones, how glassy is your house? Specifically, what is your relationship to Steve Fuller? In this edit you attached a login to HOPOS-L with what appears to be Fuller's own email address (s.w.fuller@warwick.ac.uk) embedded in it, implying a very close connection to Fuller. This raises fairly clear questions of conflict of interest. I neither claim, nor do I need to claim, that Sci-Policy's "characterization of Fuller is correct", the standard is verifiability and reputability, both of which Sci-Policy meets. In any case, I am currently using them only as support for pre-existing wording on criticisms of Fuller. Rightly or wrongly, they are clear evidence that Fuller is criticised. Overall, I am struck by how parasitic Fuller is on the scientific community. He appears to generate no insights that this community find useful, merely castles-in-the-air calls for total revolution. Because of this he appears to be completely derided and ignored by this community and to be only a fringe player even within the STS community. To be honest I'm not particularly worried if Fuller is a 'Postmodernist' (a category which most people have heard of) or a 'Social Constructionist' (a category most people would not have heard of, nor would they be able to distinguish from a 'Postmodernist'). If a reliable source can be found distinguishing him on these two categories, to say why he's the latter rather than the former, I'd be happy to include it, otherwise I will stick with what people actually say about him. Finally, we are specifically forbidden to "judge the matter first-hand." This would be 'Original Research' or at the very least 'Synthesis,' both of which is forbidden by Wikipedia Policy. If you want to do either, then do so outside Wikipedia, get your research published by a reputable source, and then what you have to say will be acceptable for inclusion here.


 * Yes, Fuller is helping me out on this -- surprise, surprise! Does my knowing the man actually disqualify me from contributing to his entry? Part of the problem here is that academic culture is very different from Wikipedia culture. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if you can get enough other people to say somebody holds a certain view, then that can be posted as authoritative in Wikipedia even if it actually contradicts the person's published statements. The burden of proof is immediately shifted to the person (in this case, Fuller) to prove that he is not what his accusers claim him to be: i.e. to find the relevant published statements. Is that right, or am I missing something? Perhaps I'm being unfair, but in that case, you should put a link to Fuller's article in Social Studies of Science where he explains what he was doing in his own words. You found the two negative pieces, so why not add the man's own? I'm not in a position to do it, but you seem to be. Kate Lennox


 * "Does my knowing the man actually disqualify me from contributing to his entry?" It does if it affects your objectivity -- as your clearly hagiographical edits would seem to indicate.
 * "If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if you can get enough other people to say somebody holds a certain view, then that can be posted as authoritative in Wikipedia even if it actually contradicts the person's published statements." You have presented no substantive evidence of contradiction.
 * "The burden of proof is immediately shifted to the person (in this case, Fuller) to prove that he is not what his accusers claim him to be: i.e. to find the relevant published statements." No. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that well-referenced criticisms of Fuller are inaccurate, if you want him to be described differently.
 * "Perhaps I'm being unfair, but in that case, you should put a link to Fuller's article in Social Studies of Science where he explains what he was doing in his own words." I did not include it because I found it rather uninformative, being more concerned with self-glorification and trash-talking the opposing philosophical witnesses than in elucidating a reasoned argument as to why a defence of such a scientifically vacuous and arid hypothesis as ID was a worthwhile enterprise. I included links to his expert report and his trial testimony. I also find it interesting that it appears that the only writer defending Fuller's views in the Social Studies of Science volume that concentrated on his Dover involvement was Fuller himself.
 * "I'm not in a position to do it, but you seem to be." I have no special access to the journal. Anything that I can do, you can also do. If you want it done, then do it yourself. I personally don't see much value in it. Hrafn42 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally Kate, if you want to present Fuller in a more positive light you need to cite reliable sources (either from the scientific community or from the STS community) supporting this presentation. Mailing lists & reviews from partisan YECs do not cut it. Hrafn42 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, JoshuaZ helped to clarify the status of Panda's Thumb, which had always puzzled me. The people you cite are qualified but not particularly important players in the scientific arena. If you can't see that fact, then you must have left academia a long time ago. Wikipedia policy may include wearing this fact as a badge of honor. I understand completely. Nevertheless, the fact that PT receives no official professional scientific endorsement but is also not officially denounced leads me to conclude that it's like a goon squad that does the job the police would like to do but for which it would then receive serious public critcism. Kate Lennox


 * Pot calling the kettle black here Kate. Neither Fuller nor any member of the ID community are "particularly important players in the scientific arena" either -- so it's unsurprising that their critics aren't generally of the highest importance. I would stack the scientific qualifications, knowledge and experience of the PT crowd against the ID crowd any day. Hrafn42 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You probably don't realize how good your answer is. Thanks! Kate Lennox


 * It's not a particularly surprising answer Kate. None of the ID crowd are heavyweights in the fields they pontificate upon. Most are in fact total lightweights that trip themselves up on such obvious points that anybody qualified in the field can point out their deficiencies. Many of their claims would be easily debunkable by mere undergrads, meaning that the PT crowd would probably be overqualified for such work (in that most have advanced degrees in their fields). Hrafn42 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick note on the two essays from The Independent
The reason I included these two essays is that I think they give a good articulation, in the words of actual participants (one of which was Fuller himself), of the two sides in the 'science wars.' It is, at least in my opinion, the sort of thing that we need if we are going to give a useful exposition of how Fuller & the scientific community view each other. That is not of course to suggest that even better examples (or even better ways of characterising this example) don't exist. Hrafn42 13:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing
Listening to his post-Dover lecture (linked on the front page here), and reading the transcript of the debate he had (again linked on the front page here), Fuller is badly confused. Wow why is he so celebrated? He seems totally confused and ignorant about science.--Filll (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fuller would appear to be the darling of the sort of militantly relativist, post-modernist, left-wingers who consider the science establishment to be an ethnocentric and illegitimate self-appointed oligarchy. The scientific community consider his ideas to be about as workable and as relevant as an LSD hallucination, but his viewpoint has generated sufficient 'scholarship' (at least in terms of articles in peer-reviewed social science journals) for it to be taken seriously as academic sociology, if not as a basis for actually doing and organising scientific research. The fact that his ideas are lending support to blatantly ethnocentric and illegitimate creationists leads many in his own field to suggest that he's being naive. HrafnTalkStalk 11:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No he isn't he is a relentless self-promotor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what he said: ``If you take seriously that evolution has to do with the transition of life forms, and that life and death are just natural processes, then one gets to be liberal about abortion and euthanasia. All of those kinds of ideas seem to me follow very naturally from a Darwinian perspective-- a deprivileging of human beings, basically. And I think people who want to endorse Darwinism have to take this kind of viewpoint very seriously.'' Nobody beyond philosophy 101 would spout such drivel.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Prejudicial
I have undone Hrafn's deletion of my edit. Before my additions, this article read very prejudicially. No indication of Fuller's views on ID were presented in an easily accessible manner (other than his Dover testimony), yet the harshest critics all seem to be represented. Also I added a link to the pre-history to his dispute with Levitt, since Levitt figures prominently as a critic in this entry. Also Fuller responded to Levitt's views precisely on the points that are highlighted in the entry, to which Levitt responded. (Both I represented.) It's fine to include the Guardian review, which is very short and written by a journalist, but it should also be fine to include a much longer review by someone who is actually expert in the subject that Fuller's book is about. And this person generally praised the book, despite criticisms. In his explanation, Hrafn says that 'Book of the Week' review does not mean 'book of week'. That's simply bizarre, and it shows the extent that Hrafn wishes to prejudice the presentation of Fuller's position. VaihingerTalkundated comment was added at 05:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: It turns out Hrafn was right about the wrong first link. Also the Times Higher description was made more neutral. All the rest remains as relevant background to the issues raised about Fuller's ID position and its reception. VaihingerTalk

Inaccurate
Find a WP:RS who actually finds Fuller's claims to be credible, and we'll give it WP:DUE weight in the article. As it stands, he doesn't appear to have many supporters. HrafnTalkStalk 08:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the only way you you can correct this "prejudicial" treatment is to inaccurately present the THES review, which was largely critical of Fuller's repeated misrepresentations & inaccuracies, then that says something about the real balance of opinion on his work.
 * You claimed that a "book of the week" (uncapitalised) review meant being "named Book of the Week" -- the precise reverse of the inaccurate accusation you made against me.
 * The claims that Fuller identifies himself as a 'secular humanist' need to be updated. Those claims were from 2005 and 2007 respectively. In The Proactionary Imperative (Palgrave Macmillan 2014), "Fuller calls himself a 'Unitarian'" (p. 7). Since I'm new at Wikipedia, I don't know how this change should be reflected in the entry. It certainly seems it should be taken out of the 'Intelligent Design' section. Middlestman (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Levitt attack-piece
Vaihinger's addition states:

This is in gross violation of WP:NPOV (and occasionally WP:NOR), in that: I get the point -- Vaihinger likes Fuller, and dislikes Levitt. But as the only person who appears to share Vaihinger's viewpoint is Fuller himself, we should not be rewriting the article to give this WP:UNDUE weight. HrafnTalkStalk 08:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It states Fuller's claim that the book was "less a defence of contemporary intelligent design theory than a demonstration of its rootedness in the history of science" as fact.
 * The claim that the misquote is " one of the three passages he cites from the book" appears to be WP:OR, designed to give WP:UNDUE weight to Levitt's error.
 * The "largely elaborating his original points" is dismissive WP:OR editorialising, as is that "It is worth observing..."


 * Keep at it, Hrafn, you are not alone. Also, I smell a sock puppet.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Link titles
Per WP:MOSLINKS, please place informative link titles for referenced links. I put a -tag on the third (and correct) THES article by Fuller you linked to as "A concise statement of his position", on the mistaken impression that it was the second (and incorrect). HrafnTalkStalk 08:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Placated?
I hope this deals with your 'editorial' criticisms. It's pretty transparent that Hrafn is hostile to Fuller, but I will abide by the Laws of Wikipedia. However, I'm puzzled why go through all this effort to trash Fuller, if you think he doesn't have many supporters? I happen to think Fuller is reasonably significant, but that doesn't mean I 'support' him in the sense of believing everything he says. I am also frankly amazed at the authority you attach to Norman Levitt, who after all has published all his criticisms of Fuller in non-peer-reviewed forums (at least the ones you cite), and typically without much explicit citation of Fuller's own work. Clearly there is bad blood between Fuller and Levitt, which is why I referred to the much earlier criticism that Fuller made of Levitt. This goes to the matter of providing some background context to what is clearly a feud. Otherwise, it's easy for the neutral reader (not you perhaps) to get the impression that Levitt has a personal vendetta against Fuller. So you see, Hrafn, I am actually trying to make Levitt look good too!VaihingerTalk —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that WP:POT rant. Having just written an attack-piece against Levitt, you accuse me of being "hostile to Fuller" and "go[ing] through all this effort to trash Fuller" -- whereas it is simply the WP:DUE weight of WP:RSs that are generally hostile to him. As I said above, the only prominent defender of Fuller appears to be Fuller himself. I attach no particular "authority" to Levitt -- he is just yet another academic who is highly skeptical of Fuller's positions. Your claim, on the basis of a 14-year old criticism by Fuller, that there is "bad blood between Fuller and Levitt" is a stretch. In that period Fuller apparently wrote a number of hostile reviews of books from the 'science side' of the Science wars -- including of books by Lewis Wolpert & Steven Weinberg, so I rather doubt if Levitt took it personally. Given that Weinberg, as a Nobel-prizewinner, appears to have gained at least some insight into how to 'do science' successfully, you might expect somebody whose field is called 'Science Studies' might find it beneficial to engage in a dialogue, rather than lobbing polemic grenades at them. However Fuller's view seems to be that 'science is doing it wrong' (and presumably therefore that a successful scientist must therefore be doing it 'wronger' than most) -- all without any apparent first-hand contact with those who actually 'do science' (contact with whom might yield insights into why they do things the way that they do). Am I "hostile" to such a contrarian attitude? Possibly, but I try not to let it influence the article -- whose purpose is to give WP:DUE weight to to WP:RS opinions of Fuller. If you can find some positive WP:RS opinions of equal (greater) prominence, we give them equal (even greater) weight. However, all you have provided to date is Fuller's own opinions on himself and a misrepresentation of a largely negative review as being positive. HrafnTalkStalk 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrafn, you must have pretty thin skin or you've been away from academia for a while. I wasn't having an 'anti-Levitt rant'. My point was simply that if you really think an entry on Fuller should focus so much on Levitt's criticisms, then the context of those criticisms need to be provided and also some recognition of the fact that Fuller has attempted to answer them. From your latest statement, it seems you haven't read Fuller's review of Wolpert and Weinberg. If you read it, you'd see that he's reviewing their two books together because they had been already attacking science studies. And in fact, in a subsequent issue of Social Studies of Science, Wolpert and Weinberg have their say. I'm not sure what you mean by 'dialogue', if not that. Fuller's difference from most of the rest of the science studies people is that he didn't and hasn't backed down when the scientists attack. This is not a popular move, I grant you. But again, you've got to see this in context. Also, if you google Fuller's and Levitt's names together, you'll see that Fuller wrote at least two other critical reviews of Levitt's books before Levitt did the piece in 'Talk Reason'. So I stick by the 'bad blood' attribution. Also, while Fuller is often sarcastic when dealing with Levitt, Levitt is just downright angry. (I have this bad habit of reading the things I link.) Maybe you need still more evidence of 'bad blood'. But you'll notice I haven't attempted to put that in the Wikipedia entry. Finally, I think the THES Book of the Week review of 'Dissent over Descent' is overall positive, especially given its designation as 'book of the review'. I live in Britain and have seen the hardcopy. It's perhaps more obvious when seen that way. But readers can decide for themselves. VaihingerTalk —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it violate any wikipedia policie(s) to say something honest like "Steve Fuller is dumb as a fence post and should sue whatever higher learning center granted him a degree"? Too POVish? Like a typical IDist Fuller is a liar who talks out both sides of his mouth and just doesn't get science. I mean holy moly cow that man is stupid. -the voice of reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be both honest and correct. That a complete idiot like Fuller has a career in academia signifies the total intellectual bankruptcy of out culture.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

RSA fellowship
This is extremely misleading. The RSA is basically a member's club to which one pays an annual fee - it has 27,000 fellows. It is not an elite Learned Society like the Royal Society or British Academy. Fellowship is not a high honour bestowed by one's peers, like FRS (for example) is. Although there is some sort of selection process, it is not at all of comparable rigour, and any successful person (certainly ANY university professor of any sort) can reasonably expect to gain membership (providing they pay their fees on time). Maybe this piece of trivia should therefore be relegated to a less prominent part of the article? Badgerpatrol (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence for this claim of yours? Exactly what percentage of UK university professors are members of the RSA? The fact that both academics and non-academics are elected to membership in the RSA is a strength, not a weakness, given what the society is set up to do. I realize that this discussion page is generally hostile to Fuller but please do your homework! Most academics wouldn't be considered worthy of RSA membership because they are not sufficiently publicly oriented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.1.161 (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since I looked into this, but I believe the RSA's selection criteria is published on their website. The "percentage of UK university professors [who] are members of the RSA" is not as relevant as whether any who apply are turned down. The former would tend to conflate exclusivity with academics simply not bothering to apply. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Continental or Analytic
Is he a Continental or Analytic philosopher? Wandering Courier (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly not Analytic, since basic reasoning skills are a prerequisite for that field. Mind you, the continentals were not slouches either. I don't think he deserves to be called a philosopher at all.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it "unsourced edits/ BLP" to quote from the actual book?
A paragraph was deleted with the notation "unsourced edits/ BLP". The paragraph quotes from Steve Fuller's book "Dissent over Descent" which was the heading of the section. So the context of the quotes gives the sources. How would you want the paragraph changed to be "sourced"? Would a footnote for each quote citing the book be satisfactory? Or a foonote at end the of the paragraph?

This was the paragraph:

"Referring to "fellow travellers" and reporting that the Panda's Thumb blog (referenced earlier in this article) is nicknamed "Darwin's Brownshirts" (at least by some ID supporters), might explain some reactions (referenced earlier in this section). Unexpected Intelligent Design loyalties are revealed among physicists: "ID theorists James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann". Fuller mentions his education by Jesuits and later links the Jesuits to the origins of the word propaganda, though he doesn't mention the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide."

205.189.194.208 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Curious feature of this entry
Fuller's Humanity 2.0 has been reviewed in a wide variety of forums and has sold well, yet there is none of the meticulous discussion of its claims that one sees for the books where he defends intelligent design theory, even though he actually talks about that there. The same applies for his previous book, Science (The Art of Living). It seems that Wikipedia editors only take notice when a work appears on the radar of the journals/magazines/blogs they read. Maybe what I'm saying is obvious, but it's worth saying in case people think that NPOV and other Wikipedia conventions guarantee 'objectivity' in any normal sense of the term.Ronald Duchamp (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Word salad
I concur with assessment that the following recently-added paragraph is word salad:


 * Fuller believes that the belief in either 'design in nature' or that human beings were created "in the image and likeness of God" (imago Dei) has been a consistent fixture in the progress, development and motivation for doing modern science.

The sourcing for this is a you-tube recording of a talk by Fuller. If Fuller's idea (whatever it is) has been explicated in a coherent fashion in the literature, and there is evidence that secondary people have interacted with this idea in a meaningful way, then perhaps it deserves a paragraph in this article. But right now it is incomprehensible sentence with bad primary-only sourcing and no evidence that anybody has engaged with it or gives a hoot. Fuller believes X by itself in isolation isn't worthy of includsion in an encyclopedia. -- M.boli (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know, seems self-evident that speaking at Tyndale Fellowship hosted a one-day Conference in Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge is plenty of evidence of "secondary interactions". It's only on YouTube because it was filmed by the conference, presumably. It's not your usual "like and subscribe" YouTube soapbox here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The above is the shortened, NPOV version. Originally, it said essentially, "Although he is aware that some idiots disagree with him, he knows that most smart people like him know that..." and then his belief above.
 * If we do keep it, it should be shortened even more to Fuller believes that religious belief has furthered the development of science. Then it becomes obvious that it is intended as a foundation for an unspoken fallacious reasoning "therefore, religious ideas should dominate science again, as it was at the time of Galileo". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Righto! I can see now what the text is saying, your rewrite captures it. (And the original version was indeed as you say.) I'll go ahead and edit accordingly.
 * That still leaves the question of "so what?" And right now this is sourced to an hour-long primary-source video, where presumably he states this belief. -- M.boli (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling's suggestion seems good to me. A subject explaining their belief at a conference, published by a third party (not that is has to be) is okay to use to explain to readers what that person believes in the context of their field. As a reader, that summation would matter to me. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)