User talk:82.36.166.26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Don Brash

Hi, thanks for rescuing this article after it was vandalised. You might find WP:RV useful for dealing with similar cases.-gadfium 18:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Darwin

Please do not keep unilaterally altering the Charles Darwin article, your views do not represent the wikipedia community consensus. You seem to be misunderstanding what the terms "theory" and "fact" mean. Please read the following:

  1. Evolution#Distinctions_between_theory_and_fact
  2. Talk:Charles_Darwin#Evolution_is_a_fact_and_a_theory
  3. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html Mikkerpikker 03:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi 82.36.166.26, thanks for your message on my talk page. In future please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ (i.e. four tildes in a row) as this makes keeping track of who's saying what much easier. (See Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages for more information]]). Re your argument with reference to Charles Darwin: you seem to be using the word 'theory' in the venacular not scientific sense. I.e., if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying we should change 'fact' to 'theory' in the Darwin article because it could be false and thus is "just" a theory. This usage, however, is not scientifically correct because "facts" are propositions (i.e. statements that are either true or false) that to the best of our knowledge are true. That is, we don't have to be ABSOLUTELY certain (in the sense of so certain that we'd be unphased if faced with Cartesian hyperbolic doubt) in order to call something true. We're not ABSOLUTELY certain that the earth is round (or roughly spherical) but we're sure enough that we can by now call it a fact. Similarly, although we're not ABSOLUTELY certain evolution is true in a descriptive sense (i.e. in Gould's words "defined as the geneological connection among all earthly organisms, based on their descent from a common ancestor, and the history of any lineage as a process of descent with modification") we ARE certain enough that we CAN can now call it a fact. (Incidentally, creationists/intelligent design people in general do not dispute evolution in the factual sense, they just argue the theory of natural selection cannot explain all the evolutionary facts). Again, because we call descriptive evolution a fact does not mean it couldn't be false just that we're certain enough that it is true that it deserves the lable 'fact'. Mikkerpikker 23:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
From Evolution#Distinctions_between_theory_and_fact:

The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. Sometimes, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion." [1] In this sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts" — parts of the world, or claims about the world, that are real or true regardless of what people think. In scientific terminology however, a theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation. In this scientific sense, "facts" are parts of theories – they are things, or relationships between things, that theories must take for granted in order to make predictions, or that theories predict. In other words, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship – for example, it is a "fact" that every apple ever dropped on earth (under normal, controlled conditions) has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains these observations is the current theory of gravitation. In this same sense evolution is a fact and modern synthesis is currently the most powerful theory explaining evolution, variation and speciation. Within the science of biology, modern synthesis has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism and creationism.

Mikkerpikker 23:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Darwin (again)

Hi, 82.36.166.26, you're still unilaterally changing the Charles Darwin article despite the fact that you have not responded to what I posted here or provided arguments over at Darwin's talk page for why your view should be accepted. I have made a new suggestion for the first sentence so please read: Talk:Charles_Darwin#Sigh.2C_the_fist_sentence Mikkerpikker 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, no - I wouldn't say Newton established the fact of gravity but that's because the fact of gravity was never disputed. The fact of evolution was disputed and Darwin can claim a good deal of the credit for convincing the world that evolution is indeed a fact (Darwin's "Origin of Species" comes highly recommended incidentally, it's a great read & might sort out lingering doubts you may have about his importance in this regard). Re no other encyclopedia calling evolution a fact: so much the worse for the other encyclopedias! They're wrong about tons of other things too! :) Mikkerpikker 23:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You keep saying evolution is not a fact, but where is your argument? Give me some evidence and maybe you'll convince me. You've read the three links I sent you earlier, so what's wrong with the reasoning there? What's wrong with following scientific usage? Mere assertions that YOU know evolution isn't a fact or that YOU know it is not a precise statement is nothing but POV unless you give me (and us over at Talk:Charles_Darwin) an argument. Mikkerpikker 00:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (PLEASE sign your messages with four tildes in a row - at least on my talk page...)
Mmmm... I'd suggest given that I've provided both arguments of my own (on your talk page & on the Charles Darwin talk page) and several links to arguments by others, that the ball is in your court. I've shifted to onus to you to produce a counter argument. In fact, my position (with supporting reasons) is laid out very thoroughly in your talk page but I'm still trying to figure out why you think my argument is wrong. (I'd be quite interested to hear...). I'm going to teach English in China for a year... need some time off, worked FAR too hard @ university and need a break. Mikkerpikker 00:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't blank your talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 82.36.166.26). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.

Please note these points:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

from Wikipedian: --kingboyk 22:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/2/2E/User_talk%7E82.36.166.26.html"