User talk:A ghost/Meditations with a Felonius Monk

A note to myself to meditate on later.....

A ghost's confusion...

I seem to be working at cross purposes to you on the intro and Disambig to ID. How can I better work with you? I'm convinced that the intro is confusing to many readers. Recent posts on the Talk bear this out. I'm further convinced that a clear, concise intro will reduce vandalism and increase stability. But you and I seem to not be meshing on how best to do this. Please drop me a line.--ghost 23:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the intro to the article is factual, well-crafted, and well-supported, despite whatever you or anyone else may think of it. The article defines the topic using the every words of not just the leading ID authorities, but the group from which ID originated and is still driven by.

To say that ID is anything other than that it's the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection." [1] is an excerise in denying the obvious. You'd going to have to explain away mountains of evidence, not least of which is the endorsement of that definition by every leading ID proponent (by the simple fact of their status as fellows of the Discovery Institue).

ID is what it's leading proponents say it is; if you have a problem with that, take it up with the Discovery Institute, not me. I only insist that we report what they say. FeloniousMonk 05:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A_ghost"

I agree that the into is factual and well-supported. Many Users and Anons are concerned that the way it's crafted is unclear. Philosophically, I disagree with the idea of allowing a political group to define the topic. This allows them to frame the debate. The equivalent (forgive my choice of analogy, but it leaps to mind) would be to open the Abortion article with a quote that was not clearly marked as such from either Operation Rescue or NOW. And if we do choose to open with a quote, we must at least put it in quotation marks to identify it as such.

I'm not interested in explaining away mountains of anything. But I also do not care to shut the door on other opinions of ID. That's the DI's goal, and I don't care to help them achieve it. I absolutely agree that we must report what they say. But, like you, I don't want the intro or the article to be regurgitated DI propaganda. We owe the readers a clear explaination.

You're the best editor I know on this subject. Please show me how to address the concerns of others and myself.--ghost 14:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, before the Discovery Institute and its political footing and clout, Stephen C. Meyer, Phillip E. Johnson and others formulated a plan for broad social reform that centered on ID, and created the Center for Science and Culture at Meyer's Discovery Institute to implement it [1].

The fact remains that all leading ID proponents are Discovery Institute staff or fellows, making the institute the center of all things "intelligent design." You can no more separate ID from its proponents than you can separate the catechism from the Vatican. The sooner you and readers understand that, the sooner you will begin to understand ID. FeloniousMonk 16:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Then why is there a distinction between Intelligent Design and Intelligent design movement? If we're going to bow to the whims of a PAC, we should give credit where it's due. The fact that "...all leading ID proponents are Discovery Institute staff or fellows." is moot. It existed in whatever usage before the DI, it was hijacked by them, it'll be around in some shape or another 100 years from now. I'm sorry that my frustration is showing, but this wasn't and isn't allowed with your example of Catechism. Similarly with fringe movements like the John Birch Society, or Scientology. You seem to advocate special treatment for the Discovery Institute. What am I missing?--ghost 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your recent similar post on the ID:Talk page. I am disturbed by the use of recent Google and media references to back up a position about ID. If one digs deeply enough into them, it's revealed that many of those "sources" list this article as a source (including both sides in the Dover case). Thus, we create an echo chamber using such references. This is why I think it's so key to segregate the DI's spin on ID from more open interpretations.--ghost 17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"It existed in whatever usage before the DI, it was hijacked by them" So it's a conspiracy theory now, I see. Right.

To make your reasoning stick, you'd have to prove that "intelligent design" indeed did exist before the Discovery Institute and the Foundation for Thought and Ethics published Of Pandas and People, which it didn't (the teleological argument did, but not "intelligent design"). Or, you'd have to prove that the Discovery Institute is not behind intelligent design both as a concept (remember, every single leading ID proponent is institute staff or a fellow) as well as a movement. And just proclaiming that fact "moot" is not going to cut it. You'd need to overcome a lot of evidence that nearly all advocacy for the intelligent design concept springs forth from the institute.

To start with, you should explain how Judge Jones gets it all wrong in his Memorandum Opinion to the Kitzmiller ruling . It seems to me that you really need to do a lot more reading of objective sources on the topic before trying to dictate what is and isn't ID and who is and isn't relevant and raising a fuss in so doing. Creationism's Trojan Horse would be a good place to at least start, or The Wedge at Work and Intelligent Design Theory and Biola University if you want a free source. Either way, your confusion arises out of your lack of knowledge about the ID concept's origin and the fact that ID proponents skilfully seek to promote and exploit that ambiguity.

The reason why there's a separate Intelligent design movement article is because the movement content was too long to accommodate at the ID article, but you already knew this as you were around at that time the daughter movement article was created.

So, until which time you can prove that the concept known as "intelligent design" did not come to it's current position largely by the efforts of the Discovery Institute, there's little reason to continue discussing this issue, both here and at Talk:Intelligent design. FeloniousMonk 17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

<"This is why I think it's so key to segregate the DI's spin on ID from more open interpretations."> These "more open interpretations" you speak of are not significant viewpoints within ID, and often are part of ID proponents exploiting the ambiguity they've cultivated around the topic to dodge criticisms. All leading ID proponents accept the institutes's definition and role: Prove that they don't. NPOV policy explicitly calls for viewpoints to be represented in proportion to their significance, and this is exactly what the article does. Again, unless it's proved conclusively that the Discovery Institute is not the leading ID think tank (which is a fact since ID both the concept and subsequent movement sprung forth from the institute and all leading lights of ID "theory" are institute members), then they get to define what ID both and in the real world and here. And also again, unless you are willing to acknowledge what is widely accepted as fact as being so, or least even read as extensively on the topic as have other long term contributors, then this discussion serves little purpose and is wasting good time. FeloniousMonk 18:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) It's fascinating and unfortunate that two people who agree on so much can disagaree on so much. You're a good editor, and not a waste of time. And I flatter myself to think the same of me. Although I've read the links you've provide in the past and recently, I agree that arguing the minutia is silly. By way of establishing other opinions of the term "Intelligent Design", let me give you a few links in return, and then we'll agree to disagree on the minutia.

• FastCompany Magazine, July 2005, "The Masters of Design"
• "His (Curran's) definition of intelligent design is 98% common sense and 2% aesthetics -- an approach that reminds me of what has consistently distinguished Apple products in a highly competitive marketplace."
• And for giggles H-P's desciption of one of their products

You were frank about your feelings, so I'll return the favor. You support this POV about the definition of ID (and other things) in the article and on the Talk page with strength and laser beam focus. That's admirable. However, it could be viewed as POV pushing and Owning an article. I don't think that's your intent. But that's clearly the way other Users feel. I'm trying to better understand things so that I can attempt to help them reach consensus with you. It's occurred to me that you may not welcome this informal mediation. But if we're no longer interested in working with other editors, something is badly wrong.--ghost 18:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've long given up on reaching consensus with those who've shown themselves to be chronic malcontents. Particularly those who are here with an ideological ax to grind and view wikipedia and the ID article in particular as a vehicle for advocacy and dissembling. The long-term, responsible editors who respect the project's goals have been burned by them each and every time, either in the form of hurtful personal attacks or massive amounts of time wasted in responding to objections made in bad faith. WP:FAITH can only cover so much disruption, and as the saying goes the assume good policy is not a suicide pact.

I'm here to write accurate, factual, and complete articles. To that end I've always insisted on reporting facts regardless of wherever they take us; nothing more, nothing less. As for any editor's personal opinion that I've taken ownership of the article, their opinion will need to align with the facts found in the article's edit history [2] or it's just another unfounded opinion which I (and any other objective editor) will reject. A wiser man once told me that it's easy to make accusations, but it's far more difficult to make them credibly. FeloniousMonk 19:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That is good advice. I may disagree with you from time to time, but it's good to know we share the same goals. I'll looks deeper into your hypothesis of the DI's right to define ID. I disagree with it on principle, but I respect that it may be a windmill instead of a giant. Thank for for taking the time to hash this out with me.--ghost 20:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You may find this light reading a good start: [3] [4]. And something a little more weighty: [5]FeloniousMonk 21:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to interrupt, gentlemen, but let's try this. Look up the word "theory", the word "entropy" and the word "evolution." Note the number of definitions for each. Note that only one is the "scientific" definition for each word. Same would be true of ID, which happens to be what the article discusses (not that I think ID is science, but I think you both know that), the "science" (psedoscience) of ID. Whether or not it shows up in an ad for a product, noting how intelligently designed the product is, is something of no relevance to the article. Jim62sch 21:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 202.133.69.149 23:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)