Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 192.86.14.16 - "→Metaphysics: " Tag: Reverted |
Hob Gadling (talk | contribs) |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Old AfD multi |date=8 July 2023 |result='''keep''' |page=Specified complexity}}
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=High}}
}}
{{archivebox|
{{{archive box|auto=yes}}
}}
== Arbitrary bias of the "controllers" make Wikipedia laughable. ==
I have made three small changes to this article with all three being reverted with no legitimate reason.
Line 15 ⟶ 19:
== Dembski loc. cit. ==
I've just corrected the Elsberry and Shallit loc. cit., but the Dembski one ("(loc. cit. p 16)" cited for "Quoting Dembski...") as it is too far separated from any of his longer works (and there are too many of them clumped together) for me to have any certainty as to which it is referring to. Does anybody know? <
== The article is enigmatic at best ==
Line 21 ⟶ 25:
People come to wikipedia for answers on what they don't know about. Unfortunately, the opening of this article is impossible for a layman to understand. I've been studying ID and the related mathematics for a while, and I can't make head or tail of what specified complexity is aiming to prove. Would it be accurate to say that the ultimate idea behind specified complexity is that life is too complex to have evolved? From my limited understanding of it, the idea is that the probability of life evolving to where it has is so low as to be considered impossible. For the sake of anyone trying to understand this, please add a sentence at the opening to the effect of "Specified complexity aims to prove that [this is the part I don't get]." [[User:Tealwisp|Tealwisp]] ([[User talk:Tealwisp|talk]]) 06:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
:The problem is, I suspect, to a large extent that (i) Dembski hasn't (in spite of repeated attempts) come up with a definition of 'specified complexity' that is meaningful (to Information Theorists) & (ii) that he conflates information and probability. Therefore the article must attempt to give Dembski's equivocating explanation of what he thinks it is (without giving [[WP:UNDUE]] weight to his claims on behalf of it) & [[WP:DUE]] weight to the scientific community's views on what they think it is not (not a meaningful concept, not useful, not a good argument for ID). <
:: What about the opening two sentences of the ''second'' paragraph? --[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] ([[User talk:CSTAR|talk]]) 07:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Line 39 ⟶ 43:
: That this article actually has a "criticism" section is probably a sign that the bulk of the article is not properly balanced. The criticisms related to an article subject should not be lumped together but integrated with the rest of the body. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
::To decide what to promote and what not to promote is lack of neutrality. This article is an attack on ID. That is not "per se" bad, only it is not neutral at all. Perhaps Wikipedia should drop the requisite of "neutrality", it would be more honest. [[Special:Contributions/186.53.245.87|186.53.245.87]] ([[User talk:186.53.245.87|talk]]) 12:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::You do not understand what "neutrality" means on Wikipedia. It does not mean we give equal weight to serious scientists and con artists. It means reflecting what reliable sources say on a subject. That is what the article does. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 14:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
: Wikipedia is adopting the HHGTTG encyclopedic editorial standard. This article should be re-edited shortly as "It's bullshit", so people don't waste time trying to find amist criticism what the idea of specified complexity is. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/187.65.198.179|187.65.198.179]] ([[User talk:187.65.198.179|talk]]) 04:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Line 53 ⟶ 59:
== ''[[Synthese]]'' on 'Evolution and its Rivals' ==
''[[Synthese]]'' [http://www.springerlink.com/content/0039-7857/178/2/ Volume 178, Number 2 / January 2011] is an entire issue devoted to 'Evolution and its Rivals'. It includes articles by such heavyweights as [[Robert T. Pennock]], [[Wesley Elsberry]] and [[Jeffrey Shallit]], [[Sahotra Sarkar]], [[Niall Shanks]], [[Barbara Forrest]] & [[James Henry Fetzer]]. Elsberry & Shallit's article, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/a1l08u041t72m227/ Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s “complex specified information”] would be particularly relevant to this topic. <
== Online Essay ==
Line 62 ⟶ 68:
#New threads go at the ''bottom'' (that's what the 'New Section' link is for.
#[[WP:PARITY]] would appear to apply. None of Dembski's claims on SC have been published in peer-reviewed journals, so it is hardly surprising that the responses to them aren't.
<
== conservation of information - does occur in other areas of science ==
Line 313 ⟶ 319:
:{{tqqi|Which brings me to this forum}}: this is not a forum (please see [[WP:NOTFORUM]]). Your claim that science treats nature as an end appears misinformed. The metaphysics are also not very important when the models/theories work and successfully continue to allow to make informed predictions and discoveries (and even understand the past better than previous methods permitted). Wikipedia has many editors of many backgrounds and faiths. They still must report about what reliable sources say in articles, not preach about their beliefs. Thank you, —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 02:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
== Inconsistent or false ==
Line 368 ⟶ 372:
I'd change this, but I know you could change literally anything in this article and the extremely biased atheist mods of Wikipedia would revert literally anything regardless of content. [[User:Anonymous]] 07:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
:Good call, a citation was requested a long time ago, since it still lacks a reference I've deleted it. Thanks, . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 08:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
== False, dishonest and misleading ==
C,mon guys. The term "specified complexity" was introduced by biologist Leslie Orgel in 1973, and the concept was used by atheist Francis Crick in 1958 and by atheist Richard Dawkins in 1986. It was NOT introduced by Dembski (in 1998) and has been in use without reference to intelligent design for 65 years.
Be critical of its use by Intelligent Design proponents if you will, but at least be honest about it.
(And by the way, Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism. Some of its proponents include are atheists such as Sir Fred Hoyle, who used it in advancing the hypothesis that life on Earth did not originate on Earth.) [[Special:Contributions/2601:404:CB83:D50:C9B1:7151:BAEF:48FA|2601:404:CB83:D50:C9B1:7151:BAEF:48FA]] ([[User talk:2601:404:CB83:D50:C9B1:7151:BAEF:48FA|talk]]) 16:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:Actually, this article does mention Orgel in the History section as a prior use of the term. Perhaps it could be phrased more clearly -particularly in the lead - that this article is about where Dembski means a particular approach of calculation for the concept which had previously been mentioned in discussions of what heredity is, and applying that into a design inference. And perhaps a line could be added to the history to mention Crick use of the term about heredity information. (for example see [https://evolutionnews.org/2014/01/when_biology_tr/ here]) But honesty here may not be possible - editors are humans and so are limited by cognitive filters, and usually have difficulty even allowing contradictory messages to appear.
:Also, the article doesn’t lead with it as Creationism. It instead leads with a vague pejorative “pseudoscience”. I actually think a branch of “Creationism” is what it should say instead, as ID was listed as a type of such in texts, and as fitting the definition because it is supporting a view of creation versus evolution. In the end I’m reassured by the thought that starting with an obvious judgemental insult serves as fair warning of bias in a situation of two wrongs make almost-right. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 15:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
:Your opinion that {{tq|Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism}} contradicts the scientific consensus on that as well as the judge of [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]. That is not invalidated by a non-creationist pseudoscientist agreeing with it. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 16:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
::[[User:Hob Gadling]] Just to be clear -- "Creationism" is not a matter determined by "scientific consensus". Such determinations are outside the realm of science, and in the realm of Philosophy or Theology. One cannot make a scientific test to show something "Creationism", nor does the view of scientists count for that. Scientific consensus can determine if something is "science" or not. But the opinion of say a Biologist in matters of Theology has about as much weight as the opinion of an auto mechanic in some discussion about Biology. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 05:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Since creationists, including cdesign proponentsists, pretend to do science, yes, scientific consensus is relevant. Both classic creationists and cdesign proponentsists are trespassing, and the owners of the territory have the right to classify them. Stay in your churches, keep out of science, don't wear fake white coats, and scientists will more or less ignore you. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 05:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Nope, science excludes any content from or speaking to anything like that. [[Methodological naturalism]] is a fundamental tenet of modern science. So again, there cannot be a “scientific” consensus defining something as Creationism. If scientists talk religion, they are not talking “science”, they are talking outside their profession. They can say IC does not belong in their house, but they do not get to go into someone else’s house. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 22:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::Both classic creationists and ID are the same type of dishonest ignoramuses which use the same type of bad reasoning. The only difference is that ID clumsily tries to hide their agenda. It does not matter if you call that "scientific consensus" or something else. It is what reliable sources agree on, and that is what counts in Wikipedia. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 06:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::Oh, a consensus in theology and philosophy of “Creationism” is clear enough, but again the point is to be clear that is not a “scientific” consensus. The scientific communities simply and wisely did not go outside their ___domain to muck about in the fields of other experts. Their opinions on that topic would not be “reliable sources” for that as what is [[WP:RS]] always depends on context. In some contexts it’s even an ID proponent. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 15:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Implying that the ID clowns are "other experts" is pretty silly - they can be quoted only on the subject of what is their own opinion, in articles about themselves - but if you do not want to call it a "scientific" consensus, that is alright. It's a consensus nevertheless. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 15:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
| |||