Talk:Tom Bethell

Untitled
This article is a joke. Bethell is not a supporter of creationism. The author doesn't even explain what he means by 'creationism' (ID, TE, YEC, OEC --- since critics of anything with a hint of purpose will label it 'creationism'). The author doesn't even understand Bethell's point regarding global warming. Bethell never stated "global warming isn't happening"; he denies that human interaction is the main cause for global warming. The author of this article states that Bethell supports pseudo-science; only because the author is displaying pseudo-integrity with his/her pseudo-logic. --jorgekluney.


 * In the 1980s, Bethell was a regular contributor to the American Spectator, which I read in those days. I recall his skepticism re Darwinism. Bethell may even have been the first time I saw Phillip E. Johnson's name in print. You could well be right re Bethell and global warming. I do NOT believe that any disagreement about the causes of global warming is pseudo science. I let the claim to the contrary stand, because 86.142.9.1 accused me of whitewashing when I removed it, and undid ALL my edits. I invite any and all to edit the accusations levelled at Bethell as they see fit.132.181.160.42 01:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thomas N. Bethell
Need article on Thomas N. Bethell, a lobbyist and sometime Washington journalist of a very different political stripe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.150.197 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Bethell's scientific qualifications?
Given that Bethell's main notability/notoriety appears to be his "unorthodox" opinions on science, it would be useful to note, in the article, if he has an scientific qualifications, or experience, to back them up. Does anybody know what his Oxford degree was in? Has he ever worked in scientific research? Hrafn42 10:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the "about the author" on his book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to science": "Bethell was born and raised in England and graduated from Oxford University in 1962 with a degree in philosophy, physiology, and psychology. He lives in Washington, D.C." Lippard 02:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it common for Oxford to confer triple majors? This seems a tad diffuse. If it is common practise, then it is reasonable to include simply on the strength of a book-blurb. If not, then a more WP:RS may be needed. Hrafn42 04:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Even the "Oxford University" reference is vague--you attend a particular college at Oxford. Which of the 39 did he attend? Lippard 02:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * He was at Trinity. But no, he has never done any scientific research, or at least any that is mentioned in his biography at the Virginia Institute.  Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 15:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a WP:RS for his being at Trinity? Does Trinity typically hand out triple majors? HrafnTalkStalk 15:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have an RS for it at hand; if I had I would have added it to the article. But it's in the biography attached to this, for example, and Trinity shows a Tom Bethell as having matriculated in 1959 here, and Bethell's said it a million times, so I'm sure  that a little effort will dig one up.  Just trying to help!


 * And no, I don't think people usually get triple degres at Trinity, which is not any reason to think that he didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimbardo Cookie Experiment (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but it is a good reason not to accept a book-blurb as confirmation. It's entirely possible that his "degree in philosophy, physiology, and psychology" was a "degree that contained papers philosophy, physiology, and psychology" rather than one majoring in all three. Your Trinity College refs are better than the current no-ref-at-all, so I'm putting it in. HrafnTalkStalk 16:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Philosophy, Psychology and Physiology (PPP) is a standard undergraduate degree subject at Oxford: http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate_courses/courses/psychology.html. In fact, students generally only study two the three Ps, so it is not a "triple major"; there isn't really any such thing as a "major" at Oxford or most British universities. pmcray (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What a truly bizarre course package -- the three constituent fields are only very tenuously linked to each other (via philosophy of mind & neurophysiology). HrafnTalkStalk 13:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Scare tags at the top of the article
You think we can get rid of them now? The BLPDispute one, at least, seems incongruous at this point. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they both can go. HrafnTalkStalk 16:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

POV Dispute
This article (mainly the last paragraph) doesn't seem very neutral to me. It makes him seem like a kook or something, and it seems very disparaging of his beliefs and generally seems written from an anti-conservative point of view. For example, he doesn't deny AIDS, and last I checked, there was no official spokesman for the "scientific community". Many scientists see merit in intelligent design. Reardless (I'm rambling now), the article just doesn't seem to be written from a neutral point of view.SpudHawg948 (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are numerous scientific organisations that act as "official spokesman for the 'scientific community'". Additionally, what the "scientific community" thinks can be gleaned from what is published in peer-reviewed journals without informed dissent. The proportion of 'scientists' who "see merit in intelligent design" is tiny, and mostly from fields unrelated to evolutionary biology. ID is a religiously-motivated political movement, an lawyers, philosophers and theologians are far more prominent in it than scientists. If these vague and fallacious accusations are all you've got, then I'll be removing the POV-template, as the article merely gives WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific view -- that none of the claims Bethell advocates have any scientific merit to them. HrafnTalkStalk 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but do you even know who some of the dissenting scientists are? I'm looking at the Discovery Center's Dissent from Darwinism list and I'm seeing mostly biologists (from various fields) chemists, embryologists, and members of other relavent fields. And it's fallacious to assume someone HAS to belong to a specific field to voice an opinion on anything related to science. If that is the case, please let me know so we can shut Al Gore and all those pretentious Hollywood activists up. And please, don't fall back on "scientific consensus". If we went off of that, we would still believe the sun revolved around the earth (which was scientific consensus). And while you point out due,undue weight, I would point to Fairness of Tone, which states "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation. We should present all significant, competing views impartially." After all, the tone of the last paragraph was my main concern, which you would note if you re-read my origional post. All I am asking for is a more balanced, neutral (and less condescending) tone. ID may be a minority view in the scientific community, but remember, a majority of Americans do support ID in one form or another .SpudHawg948 (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. I did a keyword tabulation on it a while back and the top hits were "Chemistry" and then "Engineering", with "Biology" only coming in third (just slightly ahead of "Physics"). "Embryology" only scored one single hit. Neither Chemistry, Engineering or Physics are even remotely relevant to evolutionary biology. Someone does not have to "belong to a specific field to voice an opinion on" it -- they merely have to for that opinion to be expert or scientific. This is not a "scientific dissent" this is a religious dissent.
 * "If we went off of that, we would still believe the sun revolved around the earth (which was scientific consensus)."
 * Bullshit! Ever hear of Nicolaus Copernicus, or Galileo Galilei? It was scientists who discovered heliocentricity and it was religious conservatives who sought to suppress it -- just as Young Earth Creationists today want to turn the clock back to the 17th century before modern geology and Old Earth Creationists want to turn back the clock to the 19th century prior to evolutionary biology. None of the positions that Bethell advocates have "significant" scientific following. I suggest you read WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOVFAQ & WP:NPOVFAQ. HrafnTalkStalk 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * " majority of Americans do support ID in one form or another " Unlike Conservapedia, this is not a US-oriented project. The opinion of a majority of Americans (or Danes or Scots) on a particular question is not, in general, a relevant factor in assessing whether the article appropriately represents relevant Viewpoints (in the case of scientific questions, those of scientists) Cap&#39;nTrade (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry hrafn, I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia that maintained a neutral tone. I didn't realize that condescension and profanity were the name of the game. Thank you for showing me how intolerant some people can be of differing points of view. SpudHawg948 (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You did not appear to be seeking 'neutrality' so much as WP:UNDUE weight for a series of positions that have been rejected by the scientific community. Your "sun revolved around the earth" claim was BS, so I called it as such, per WP:SPADE. If you resent "condescension" then stop inviting it by making unsubstantiated and demonstrably inaccurate claims. The fact that making such claims simply makes their advocate look foolish has been commented upon at least since the time of Saint Augustine (who made this point in The Literal Interpretation of Genesis). HrafnTalkStalk 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jim Garrison's JFK assassination researcher
New Orleans DA Jim Garrison hired a young British man named Tom Bethell to do research for his prosecution of Clay Shaw. Same Tom Bethell, or a different one? Given his age and that he has lived in Louisiana, it appears a possibility. Lippard (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Verified it in his own writing, updated the entry accordingly. Lippard (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)