User talk:Hsteach

Welcome!

Hello, Hsteach, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Child sacrifice with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Trusilver 16:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from talk page of Scjessey (talk · contribs)):

Hi, I have rarely made edits to Wikipedia. I did two today and found they were immediately deleted. As my intention is not to offend or do things incorrectly, I would like some help in understanding a few things before I go in to edit again. I'm not sure that this is where I should be posting my questions--if not, by apologies and would you redirect me?

In particular, I want to edit the pseudoscience page as it is biased in at least two paragraphs. Apparently, my original changes did not conform to proper standards.

1. Where do I put my reason for making this change? Is this required of all posts? Or only posts on controversial subjects like atheism and evolution for example?

2. Does each page in Wikipedia have an "owner" or "mayor" that watches over it and the changes that are made? Do they have absolute veto power? How do I communicate with this person--or even find out who it is?

3. Much of the bias I see on Wikipedia pages is ingeniously subtle. These are difficult to edit as a debate is not the purpose of the page--I know this. How then is it best done--the inclusion of contradictory facts without inflaming others? For instance, the inclusion of creation science and ID as pseudoscience is an opinion--an opinion held by many, but never-the-less, an opinion. Many people, including reputable scientists will disagree with this characterization. Some highly respect scientists consider evolution to be pseudoscience. The question is, if I post this fact with appropriate citations and whatever else is expected, will it be deleted?

Thanks in advance for you help.

Hsteach (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Normally, you only need to make a small comment in the "edit summary" section when you perform an edit.
2. Edits on Wikipedia are performed by consensus. No individual has veto power, but if edits are performed that conflict with the
   Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines
   or a previously established consensus, an editor can revert those edits.
3. Creation science and Intelligent Design are indisputable examples of pseudoscience, a fact verified by an overwhelming preponderance of
   reliable sources
   . I am sorry if this doesn't fit in with your world view, but that's just the way it is.

If you feel the need to reply to my comments, you may do so below. I will be watching your talk page for a while. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I disagree with the last statement. Yes, I do have a worldview but that doesn't mean I am basing my edit on mere opinion. I would like to post the following edit to pseudoscience:

Creation scientists and Intelligent Design proponents strongly object to the labeling of their disciplines as pseudoscience--many have declared evolution to be the pseudoscience.

One of the greatest European zoologists, Pièrre-Paul Grassé held the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne University, Paris, for decades. He openly admitted that he did not know how Darwinian evolution could have happened, and attacked Darwinian ideas as naïve. In his 1973 book he wrote:

‘Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. … Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories. … Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data] should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions. … The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs.’

THE REFERENCE Pièrre P. Grassé, L’évolution du Vivant, 1973, published in English translation as The Evolution of Living Organisms, pp. 7–8, 1977. Quoted by P. Johnson in J. Buell and V. Hearn (ed.), Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Richardson, TX, USA, p. 7, 1994.

The above edits are factual statements. Will these be allowed to stand?

Thanks for the help.

18:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Pierre-Paul Grassé was a proponent of Lamarckism, which no longer has serious support in modern science. In fact, that is one of the very essences of science - new discoveries lead to older theories being discarded. While it is true that Creation "scientists" and ID proponents object to their disciplines being referred to as pseudoscience, their objection does not change the facts. I see little chance of a consensus of Wikipedians agreeing to allow your proposed change to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, the Wiki rules indicate that my edits are reasonable. I am stating a fact not opinion. Creation scientists and proponents of intelligent design DO object and DO often label evolution as pseudoscience.

Darwin was a proponent of Lamarckism. Surely we won't be calling his reputation into question on Wikipedia:

in the sixth edition (1872) of his book, Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:

The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much elongated neck, fore-legs, head and tongue, has its whole frame beautifully adapted for browsing on the higher branches of trees. It can thus obtain food beyond the reach of the other Ungulata or hoofed animals inhabiting the same country; and this must be a great advantage to it during dearths.... So under nature with the nascent giraffe the individuals which were the highest browsers, and were able during dearth to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved; for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food.... Those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects will have been the most liable to perish.... By this process long-continued, which exactly corresponds with what I have called unconscious selection by man, combined no doubt in a most important manner with the inherited effects of the increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe. (Darwin 1872, pp. 177ff.)

I would assume I could place that quote in the pseudoscience page along with the previous quote.

Thanks again for the information.

And Aristotle believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. We don't hold historical scientists to modern day standards, but rather accept that they were using the information they had to work with at the time. By that token, we would similarly revert someone who edited Earth by saying that it's the center of the universe, regardless of whether or not someone notable once wrote about it. Wikipedia articles on science generally reflect the current scientific consensus. Trusilver 20:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science does not require a consensus. As often as not, a scientist may be working against the current consensus. In this article on pseudoscience, I find the following quote: In 1978, Paul Thagard proposed that pseudoscience is primarily distinguishable from science when it is less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and its proponents fail to acknowledge or address problems with the theory. It is argued, even within the evolutionary ranks, that evolution has many problems and that a political correctness (as might be inferred here) has set in.

It seems to me that the bottom line is this: if any quote or fact would tend to undermine a certain political ideology or philosophy, it must be censured. I understand this desire--it is common in human institutions. But if the same standard were used by the scientists of Darwin's day, Origin wouldn't have seen the light of day.

Look, I get it. You have very strong evolutionary, perhaps atheistic biases, but your conscience should tell you that censorship is wrong even when you commit it. What other "sacred cow" will you be willing to protect? There is a respected population of scientists in all fields of various religious beliefs who believe evolution was once a hypothesis which has now been falsified and is today a pseudoscience, desperately protected by adherents whose reputation and stature are at risk. The scientists of Galileo's time were in the same boat. They were the consensus then--fighting the new heliocentric paradigm.

Bottom line, if I post something factual about this issue--properly cited, am I going to be called a "vandal"? Will someone attempt to ban me--for posting a fact?

Hsteach (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. While it is "factual" that Creation "scientists" and ID proponents say their stuff is science, it is not a mainstream position by any stretch of the imagination. The simple facts are these: Creation "scientists" and ID proponents claim their stuff is science, but absolutely none of it is supported by science. Something that claims to be "science" when it isn't is pseudoscience. So I'm afraid any attempt by you to use the article to promote these claims will likely be vigorously defended by a veritable horde of Wikipedians. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]