User talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive May 2005

creation science
I noted your comments on creation science, in which you were extremely critical of me. first, i'd like to ask how your comments fit in with my recent edits on christian right and human nature by which (with a few edits by you and others to which i didn't object) long-running pov conflicts were resolved. With regard to creationism articles, I'd like to ask you, in your view, what role should creationists have in the editing of articles describing their point of view? shall we stand by while editors like bensaccount repeatedly violate the non-negotiable npov rule that articles neither state nor imply that a particular view is right or wrong? permit the deletions of huge swathes of attributed data in favor of strawman and personal research? please address my question directly: do you think npov allows articles to directly state that creation science is not science? if so, how do you reconcile that with the non-negotiable npov principle that articles may not state that a pov is wrong? Ungtss 22:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * True, many of the long-running pov conflicts revolving around creationism articles have been recently resolved and you deserve some credit for that. I have noticed your efforts. Let's keep in mind some recent points made by the arbitration committee: 1) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy of any kind. 2) Aggressive use of Wikipedia forums to mobilize support for point of view editing (or rallying support for RFCs, IMO) results in exacerbation of conflict. 3) Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem. This last point is how I see bensaccount's actions; no doubt you'll disagree, but lets just keep in mind the three points above and think about how to ease the tension.


 * About creationism, I think we can agree that creationists have the same role and responsibilities at those articles as any editor does editing any article. I also believe that if creation science does not meet the standard criteria set forth by scientists to actually qualify as genuine "science," then yes, the WP guidelines not only just allow for that point to be made, but demand it (the requirement for being factually accurate and complete). Noting that a POV (a group) misapplies terms when self-identifying or intentionally misrepresents itself is not the same as saying "a pov is wrong" at all, in my view.


 * Anyway, things are settling down. Let's not let them get stirred up again. FeloniousMonk 07:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * i agree with you that things have settled down, and i enjoy it and have no wish to stir things up. i'm simply seeking a mutual understanding to prevent outbreaks of character assaults on and by both sides in the future.  i am a firm believer in the substantive rules of npov -- i believe they are clear and beautiful.  one of those rules is that where a particular material "fact" is widely disputed, the different takes on that "fact" ought to be attributed.  do you believe in this rule?  my guess is that you do, and that you think it does not apply in this case, presumably because "Creationists intentionally misrepresent themselves as scientists."  I ask you, does this "Exception" smack of one grounded in npov policy, or personal distaste for proponents of the subject matter?  if the former, where and why does npov permit exceptions for "bad people?"  if the latter, why do you continue to promote such an approach?  Ungtss 13:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That it's even an "exception" would all depend on the evidence, wouldn't it? FeloniousMonk 16:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * indeed ... and when the evidence is widely interpretted in different ways, both interpretations of the evidence should be provided and attributed, should they not? Ungtss 16:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That creation science does not meet the criteria to qualify as actual science is an easily verifiable fact, not some arbitrary POV. The elench for that being a simple matter of deductive logic, not evidence open to interpretation. Since creationism in all forms starts with a conclusion, by definition it cannot be science.
 * That creation scientists dispute both the method that results in that conclusion and the meaning and significance of the evidence for evolution is a non sequitur. Whether their efforts are really science or just pseudoscience and cargo cult science, does not depend on their understandings and opinions. It also illustrates the flaws in their thinking. You're wasting your time and mine with this line of reasoning. FeloniousMonk 17:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * i'm not here to waste time. i am hear to gain mutual understanding as part of my 6 month quest to achieve npov on creationism pages.  the exclusion of creation science as science depends on one's definition of science.  it is the definition of science which is disputed in this case -- and that dispute is at the heart of creation science itself.  is it pov to assume a single definition of science that excludes creation science when creation scientists have a definition of science that includes it, or npov to describe both definitions, and explain how creation science satisfies one but fails another?  Ungtss 17:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What you're actually here for is yet to be seen. A number of reputable and credible editors have already publicly expressed doubts in your claim of NPOV. Whether your claim is supported by your history will be a conclusion that others will have to make for themselves.
 * Your argument that the exclusion of creation science as science depends on one's definition of science is completely specious and without merit. One could just as easily argue that that the moon is made of cheese depends on one's definition of cheese.
 * The criteria for qualifying as science is well established. It is clear and unambiguous. It is only controversial to those who seek credibility for their claims being scientific but cannot meet the bar. Those like creation scientists.
 * One more time, whether or not creation science is actual science does not depend on understandings and opinions of creation scientists. Any argument that it is is DOA.
 * Again, you're wasting time here. FeloniousMonk 17:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * so in summary, you're saying "it's npov because i'm right and you're wrong." thanks.  carry on.  Ungtss 17:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, what I'm saying it's NPOV to identify creation science as not actual science because it isn't real science. Creation science cannot be science by definition, a fact which is self-evident. Not because I'm saying "I'm right and you're wrong". Claiming I am is a straw man. FeloniousMonk 18:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * it is not a straw-man. you made the same assertion.  "it's npov to identify creation science and non-science because it is nonscience."  In so arguing, you dismiss all opinions that differ from yours.  npov need not represent those views, because (according to you) they are wrong.  At its heart, your argument reduces to, "it's npov because i think it's right."  and anybody who disagrees with you is denying "self-evident truth."  when religious people make arguments like this, i generally refer to them as dogmatists.  Ungtss 18:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but No. Anyone reading the above will see I established using the most basic of logic why creation science is not science, and why any claim that it is a logical fallacy. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * perhaps. or perhaps they'll see repeated variations of the argument, "it's not science because most scientists (and i) say so."  perhaps the creation science page would benefit from a discussion of the creationist definition of science, with rebuttal?  Ungtss 18:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My statement that creation science by definition cannot be actual science relies not on a argument from authority or rhetorical hyperbole as you'd have us believe, but rather on simple logic and semantical precision. Your suggestion otherwise and the reasoning you offer for it appear to betray a thin understanding of both science and logic.
 * As for you adding another pro/con list to a creationism article, keep in mind that pro/con lists are frowned upon by the WP guidelines, that a number of your previous efforts in that vein have not fared well when they come up for comment or VFD, and that more weeks or months of tit-for-tat posting will only lend credence to the claims of others that you have a history of engaging in a campaign of POV propaganda and advocacy, and justify their reactions in  attempting to combat an outbreak of what you just said at the start of this thread you were no longer doing. FeloniousMonk 21:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * i challenge you to find a single substantive argument in your statements above, beyond the rather silly analogy that "one might as well say that 'the moon is made of cheese' depends on one's definition of cheese," which totally ignores the fact that the definition of science is one of philosophy of science and is therefore not beyond dispute, despite the efforts of best efforts of naturalists to make it so, so that the analogy to cheese is so flawed as to be laughable. beyond that, i did not suggest pro-con lists -- i suggested a discussion of the creationist definition of science for a page about creation science.  finally, i have never created a pro-con list -- views compared was suggested and created by two evolutionists, if you have any interest in recalling the facts.  i began this conversation hoping to cross new ground.  i see that in your world, "everybody is wrong but those who agree with me" is an acceptable epistemological framework and the purpose of creation science articles is not to describe them but to debunk them, so i will now terminate this dialogue.  feel free to contact me if your mind ever opens beyond the naturalistic dogma you've ingested.  Ungtss 23:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm impressed with your ability to cover half a page with an argument that has absolutely no merit and take it to a record level of indentation. Your Clintonism "the exclusion of creation science as science depends on one's definition of science" is even less compelling than his "It depends what your definition of is is..." A always equals A, attempts to argue the contrary are special pleadings. Hence "the exclusion of creation science as science depends on one's definition of science" &equiv; "the moon is made of cheese depends on one's definition of cheese" &equiv; "It depends what the definition of is is..." 

Funny that in one breath you claim that you are right in asserting that creation science is indeed science while the entire scientific community is wrong in their claims otherwise, and in another breath you accuse me of claiming "everybody is wrong but those who agree with me." The hypocrisy and irony of your own statements may be lost on you, but it's not to others.

As for your challenge to cite a substantive argument I've made today, several are present above to be discovered by those with sufficient wit and erudition to recognize them. As for dogma, one need only look no further than your edit history to see who is the more dogmatic editor between the two of us. FeloniousMonk 02:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, if you say so. carry on.  Ungtss 02:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/12/kansas.evolution.flap El_C 02:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Lol. Party like it's 1999. FeloniousMonk 06:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You mean, like it's 1399 ! You love the Middle Ages, don't you? ... The concept of a geocentric universe gets you sexually excited, dosen't it? (Family Guy) El_C 06:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, it wasn't called the Dark Ages for nothing...
 * Apparently it's a FeloniousMonk-centric universe that I live in, at least that's what ungtss is telling me. FeloniousMonk 17:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, if I recall correctly, there was a (self-inflicted) shortage of lamps. Also, a (self-inflicted) shortage of cats, but no shortage of rats or plague. El_C 19:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, and secular modernism provided its share of holocausts, great purges, cultural revolutions, nuclear wars, and the murder of 45 million Christians in the last century. i'd take the rats anyday.  at least they weren't evil.  what's funniest of all, tho, is how modernists are forced to compare the creationism of today with the middle ages ... when indeed, the christianity of the middle ages was all that saved rome and europe from total annihilation from its secular/pagan insanity, and got europeans to stop worshipping trees and rocks.  1500 years later, we're still picking up the pieces after secularism destroys itself in world wars.  and the secularists snicker, "tee hee hee -- you think like people USED to think -- we're MODERN."  as tho Lucretius wasn't making the same hackneyed arguments for atheism 2000 years ago.  carry on, gentlemen.  we've heard the nonsense before.  no surprises.  Ungtss 21:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, the secularism and atheism is the root of modern evil argument gets trotted out. FeloniousMonk 22:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you can take the rats, I'll take the lamps; science, with all its vicissitudes and promise. El_C 22:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * i'll take the lamps too, and the rats with fur. you take the rats who think that lamps and faith are mutually exclusive, those who think that science and christianity are mutually exclusive, and those who think that lamps are any good when one lacks the light of Reason.  Ungtss 22:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no small irony in a proponent of creationism, a concept arising from religious dogma, attempting to claim reason as the basis for his thinking instead of its true origin: faith. This is exactly what's causing your confusion over creation science v. actual science. QED. FeloniousMonk 22:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * your perennial error is this: due to your assumption that dogma and science are mutually exclusive, you conclude that dogma must be unscientific simply by virtue of being dogma. in your rush to escape dogma, you fail to apply the scientific method to it to test its veracity.  you exclude it a priori instead of considering the possibility that it is history.  you throw the baby out with the bathwater.  i agree with you that science, rather than dogma is the ideal way to advance knowledge.  but i think that when science is applied to the ancient abrahamic texts, most of the nonsense dogma is stripped from them, and what remains is a very reliable and solid history of life on earth.  Ungtss 22:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again you miss your mark. This time because your assumption is unfounded. You have no actual knowledge as to what I believe regarding the idea dogma and science being mutually exclusive. I was raised and educated Catholic, which as you no doubt belatedly realize, accepts as a matter of doctrine that evolution is compatible with its dogma. You're 0 for O here.
 * I suggest taking your sniping and faulty logic somewhere else. I'll be archiving this thread soon to make way for other conversations. FeloniousMonk 23:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "...a very reliable and solid history of life on earth" What? Like Balaam's taking ass? Please. FeloniousMonk 23:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * i see how important dogma and authority are in your scheme, such that the "catholic church's opinion" is somehow imputed to you because you were "raised catholic." the catholic church also holds other views, like, "God exists and his existence is evident to reason."  incidentally, i've never heard a practicing catholic denounce the story of balaam's ass.  so you're 0 for 3.  archive away.  i just couldn't let the nonsense go unanswered.  Ungtss 23:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)