User talk:William M. Connolley/Old Talk 2

User:William M. Connolley/Old_Talk_1

Scientific opinion on climate change
The opinion of the scientific community about global warming is completely within the topic of global warming and should not be seperated just because it's a big article. I think that a view of the general consensus of scientists about global warming is necessary for NPOV. The scientific opinion of global warming doesn't seem like a topic onto itself. LDan 22:33, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Why should that be at a seperate page? The title of the section is called Scientific Opinion, so why should there be a page scientific opinion of global warming? This doesn't make sense. Please explain it to me; I am at a loss. LDan 20:32, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * You could seperate anything from the Global Warming page; there's nothing special about this survey. Wikipedia has no policy against really long pages. See Creationism. LDan 00:21, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I made a post to the Village pump about this debate.
 * In those cases, it is policy to break up those pages into a series, see Early Russian East Slavs for an example of something in the series of History of Russia. And anway, there is no such warning on the global warming page.LDan 16:42, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

William M. Connolley 09:59, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)) I was going to comment on this earlier but forgot: all this would be better in the sci op of cl ch page. My POV is that the vast majority of scientists support the IPCC consensus, because their work is summarised there - thats what IPCC is. But Ed insists on the Black Helicopters, sadly.

Oops, just saw this today. Look, don't let Ed bully you too much. He's clearly intent on making Wikipedia push a minority POV. NPOV clearly states that pseudoscience does not have to be treated equally, but rather the mainstream scientific consensus can be presented as such, as long as it is explained why it is the consensus. So you don't have to let Ed's pseudoscience have equal space in articles. If the IPCC clearly represents the scientific consensus then it's OK to say so.

(I'm sorry if this looks like a request for you to do my work for me, but I'm not a scientist and I try not to edit too far out of what I know. I would expect science articles to be written mostly by scientists...) Evercat 22:23, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. I feel contrained to add only such stuff as I can reasonably support from references, sadly Ed feels no such limits. But, I'm optimistic enough to hope that (a) there is enough well referenced to support the "truth" (well, in science terms, the two are in some senses identical) and (b) most readers can distinguish POV and not. Perhaps the last is a little hopeful.


 * That's not true, but at least you said it tactfully. My grounding in science is pretty strong, and my math credentials are impeccable. On the other hand, if you guys think 67% means consensus I guess the other 33% are just being uncooperative. --Uncle Ed 19:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Voting in Science
Scientific findings must be reproducible, otherwise they're junk. Voting only counts in politics. --Uncle Ed 19:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Its a fair point (about voting), but not entirely correct. Perhaps a purists POV. Perhaps even a non-scientists one. A given idea in science is either right or wrong, or partially right, etc. And ultimately "science" usually plumps for the correct theory. So far so good. But what about the stages when an idea is being considered? GW is at this stage. Almost all (climate) scientists have adopted it (this is my assertion). When should one say that there is "a consensus"? that there is "almost unanimity"? Or whatever? Surveys don't exist (the Bray one is old, and a small sample, and perhaps not even the right questions) to answer this. "Everyone" now accepts relativity - there is clearly consensus on this. Would you claim that in the absence of a survey this cannot be shown? How would you attempt to demonstrate it? I could find any number of webpages that conclusively disprove relativity :-).


 * I have come to believe that the sci op on cl ch is on the wrong track. What matters to Science (capital S) is the papers in journals - that is a true measure of the current of science. And we all know what they say.


 * As for "Scientific findings must be reproducible"... err,, what are you talking about?

I'd like to see a sample of what you've been smoking, doc. Maybe it will put transport me to a 50 First Dates alternate reality...

GW and Relativity are distinct cases: only a fruitcake like you would think of comparing apples and oranges! ;-) GW is still in the hypothesis stage; it's "being considered", you said.

Relativity passed through the "being considered" stage long ago. Astronomers and physicists have verified the theory, by matching predictions with observations.

My great-grandfather, Charles Lane Poor, did not accept relativity when it was first presented, on the grounds that its predictions weren't sufficiently verified by the body of observations then current. I don't think a professor of celestial mechanics at Columbia University would have published his doubts unless, at the time, there was good reason to do so. (My father said that later on, of course, Prof. Poor accepted the theory.)

The problem is that in the last 15 years, GW has remained in the hypothesis stage but activists want governments to take drastic immediate action. You, Sheldon & Evercat seem to want the Wikipedia to endorse the GW hypothesis -- despite (a) the principle that Wikipedia shouldn't endorse ANY point of view and (b) the fact that scientists have not yet come to a consensus that GW is true.

With respect and good humor, Uncle Ed 14:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Since when was "I'd like to see a sample of what you've been smoking, doc" an example of respect and good humor? --Trainspotter 14:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * LOL, well spotted, old bean! It wasn't nearly as funny as only a fruitcake like you would think of comparing apples and oranges! Don't worry: Dr. C. and I made our peace long ago and all this banter is considered good sport between is (correct me if I'm wrong, William). --Uncle Ed 13:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 14:52, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)) Well, I seem to have taken up asking you for advice now... yes indeed, we're on good terms now, AFAIK. I must archive some of the old stuff.


 * (William M. Connolley 18:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)) So, what about the question: how exactly would you demonstrate that relativity is now consensus?


 * Oh, I dunno. Do a survey of penguins? --Uncle Ed 18:26, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pueblos
Mr. Connelly,


 * (William M. Connolley 11:53, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)) I've said it before: if you insist on using my title, use the right one. And spell my name right.

I read your notice at the RC patrol, and noted your repeated edits on a subject involving United States relations with Pueblos of the SouthWest. I appreciate your concern, which presents an occasion to more accurately understand the legal record that created todays Pueblos. It is not the kind of thing that can be presented at four a.m. though. I assure you on the Pueblos that is the way the story is told.

Of respect for the Pueblo people who are mostly sleeping at this hour, I encourage you to stay your sense that the term appears dodgey and allow that you may learn something interesting about our country's history if you will wait long enough for me to find an easy source for you to confirm this widely understood fact. It's just that its the middle of the night here, so please wait until I can help you better understand this before you further assert the irrelevance of the history of the term.

Pueblo does not refer to a Native American Communty, any more than human refers to an animal. One is a subset of the other, but not the other way around.

Thank you, Kareem 11:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 11:53, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)) For the moment I'm going to leave the page. You've promised sources: I trust you will uphold that promise.

Hey, doc, look at this cool edit Kareem made. Bet that warms your heart, after hanging around with penguins and ocean currents all day. Eh? :-) --Uncle Ed 13:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 14:52, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)) Hmm, time will tell. I'm taking your advice though. And I've been hanging around with having our IT folk reboot our machines and other tech frustration, not penguins, sadly.

Wind
Hi. I noticed you made substantial changes to the Wind article. Commentary on the Talk:Wind page. Denni 19:08, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Scientific method
WMC, I noticed your dialogue with Banno at Talk:scientific method, and have promptly corrected the lack of date on an earlier comment which he regarded as unfortunate. Perhaps you might find informative the back and forth we had at Talk:philosophy of science. Most of it is, I think, archived. You will likely see that, to a considerable extent, there was not actual engagement of ideas. I am at a loss how to proceed in this context in which writing is hostage to all others; the WP approach has virtues, considerable ones, but also some interstices which lead to unfortunate results, or at least so I perceive. In some sense, I feel that in this matter I have broken my lance and am without access to a forge and anvil.

You appear, from some of your comments, to have similar difficulties with some (all?) of the existing content/tone at scientific method. Perhaps you will find your lance less subject to fatigue if you contribute at scientific method.

I am uncertain whether you would prefer comment here (as above) or on your Talk page. Please feel free to move this as you prefer.

ww 15:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) <--note date!


 * (William M. Connolley 22:27, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)) Thanks for the comment: talk page in future, but I'll move this in a moment or ten. Anyway, sci method has come on a bit and I'll try to find an example for the "math simp" section. But at least the NPOV header is gone, for now. As to tone (please to all don't elaborate this here: go to scientific method for discussion) I think there is a bit too much philosophy there, and will have another look at it soon enough.

Scientific Skepticism
So fightening for an article which has been in a POV state for a long time is silliness on my part? You need to grow up and understand that sometimes one sole party can be in the wrong. It's like saying the "allies and axies need to stop fightening and grow up". It's silly. - Lord Kenneth 02:32, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 08:21, 2004 Apr 1 (UTC)) Improving an article is good. "Fighting" for an article is less clear. Breaking the rules of war is bad. Recruit some helpers so you don't go over 3 reverts but your "opponent" does. Note: I voted for a temp ban for both sides.

Reddi
Since you were helping in the struggles with Reddi over luminiferous aether, it would be helpful if you could also take a look at Trouton-Noble experiment, where he is causing similar problems. (Be sure to look at the history, of course, because he keeps reverting.) It's hard to deal with this guy rationally. Thanks! &mdash;Steven G. Johnson 21:09, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:23, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)) Will take a look. There are two quickpolls too...