Talk:Evolution as fact and theory/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Recent change to lead

I am relatively fine with the recent changes to lead by invertzoo, but it split it into five paragraphs instead of four. The lead should be four paragraphs max. It is a bit awkward in spots, but I do not have time today to get onto this - will be back through the week.Thompsma (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Made revisions - tried to get rid of WP:Weasel statements.Thompsma (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Obscurity

This article seems to be very obscure. In particular the introduction of "manifest" and "inferential" headings in the Fact section has really muddied the waters. There is no explanation of what Kinraide & Denison mean by manifest fact and most of the citations in that section contradict the very idea. The idea of inferential fact seems philosophically dubious.

Looking back at the archives, I see this started with an observation "Please provide links to articles that support the definitions of fact that appear in the current lead - because I can't find them." (see archive) Yet afaics, Stephen Jay Gould in his original article with this name was not using fact in any technical sense, so the attempt to explain the title of the article by using tight philosophic or biological definitions is doomed to failure.

In fact, looking at the old version of the article before the major changes took place, it makes some sense, while the current article is impenetrable. Of course there are things there that could be improved, but the present text stretches Gould's sense beyond the breaking point.

The biologist has little or no need of this article: it is for the layperson. The current profusion of jargon is counter-productive. Wiki articles don't always improve with age and I'm tempted to suggest that we might go back to the older version and try to improve that. This might be a bit extreme, but what do others think? Chris55 (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good grief! I haven't looked at this article for a long time, and the last time I looked it looked something like the old version referred to above. I see what you mean, Chris55. The present version is far too convoluted and impenetrable. No objection from me if the last year-or-so's accretions were chipped away. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the references was to a tortured argument by intelligent design creationist Casey Luskin, I've reworded the section using one of Moran's articles as a source. What is evolution? could also be useful, if needed. The cropped lead seemed to me to put too much emphasis on Gould's essay and undue weight to creationism, I've modified it to reflect Gould's essay and the body text more closely. . Haven't checked if any other issues had arisen with the general cropping of the article. . dave souza, talk 13:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The concept of manifest and inferential fact has also been supported by other philosophers of science. It is not an obscure idea.184.71.102.86 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of FAQ

I've removed the (transcluded) FAQ that appeared at the top of this talk page as it seems to limit the freedom of contributors in a manner which is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia being entirely the work of one contributor.

Its opening sentence sets the tone: "This article covers an advanced topic on evolutionary biology that falls under the philosophy of science." However the topic of this article arises out of an article written in Discover magazine and the contradictory versions demonstrated in the "in the literature" section show that is an informal slogan which can be used in various ways. Attempting to formalise it has led to an article which defeats its original purpose.

If you want to read it, it is still available at Talk:Evolution as fact and theory/FAQ. Chris55 (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It was not the work of a single contributor - it was discussed in the main evolution talk pages [1]. It should not have been removed.184.71.102.86 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please restore the original FAQ.184.71.102.86 (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"However the topic of this article arises out of an article written in Discover magazine and the contradictory versions demonstrated in the "in the literature" section show that is an informal slogan which can be used in various ways" - said no one. The topic of evolution as fact and theory has been around for much longer than the article put out by Gould. The journal Evolutionary Theory by Leigh van Valen is a case in point - there were many articles written on evolution as fact and theory. The article addresses the topic of evolution as fact and theory. The removed material was advanced scaffolding and could have been simplified, but nobody had the right to unilaterally remove the material. Much of the deleted material should be reinstated.184.71.102.86 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

These points were already discussed and debated by the community. "as it seems to limit the freedom of contributors in a manner which is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia being entirely the work of one contributor." - is false - it was not the work of a single contributor, but it was extensively discussed and there were multiple collaborators. Return the material please.184.71.102.86 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)