User:Guettarda/Sandbox 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Guettarda |
{{current}}
Between July and October 2005 four bombs went off in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago [1].
- The first bombing took place on July 11, 2005 [2]
- The second bombing
- The third bombing
- The fourth bombing, at popular nightspot Smokey and Bunty's in St. James took place on October 14, 2005 [3]
- Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr was arested in connection with the bombing [4]; [5]
- His supporteres described the arrest as a "smokescreen" [6]
- Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr was arested in connection with the bombing [4]; [5]
-
-
-
- Most of what they have published isn't research into ID. Most publications deal with analogies - like Behe's mousetrap. They aren't "research" (scientific research) in that they don't employ comparative, experimental or modelling approaches. Behe and Snoke published a simulation modelling paper which looked at mutations in proteins, but Behe himself said that it was not research into ID. Wells has a recent paper or two looking at flagella. He proposes an interesting hypothesis about how flagella work, and discusses the plausibility of this mechanism. It is scientific, because his model is testable (I'm not sure how easy it would be to test it at this point in time, but that's a different issue). The problem is that Wells calls it research into ID, when it makes no attempt to exclude alternative hypotheses. In fact, iirc, he defines it as being ID, and then calls it research into ID. The problem with making a definite statement in the article that there is none is that Wells, it would appear, would contest that assertion. While his paper wouldn't fit any definition of research into ID that I could come up with, that isn't good enough for Wikipedia.
- To get back to the bulk of publications about ID, they aren't really research into ID because they don't exclude alternatives. If someone was to show definitively that something could not have arisen by current evolutionary models, all it would show would be that current models are wrong. But in the scientific method, that's not earth-shaking. You assume that you are wrong, but you are working with the best guess (hypothesis) that you can come up with. If the data supports your hypothesis, then you haven't proved anything - you could be right, or you might have come up with the wrong errors
-
-
[edit]
- To what extent have you been involved in arbcomm cases in the past?
- Are you familiar with arbcomm precidents established in previous cases?
- It sometimes appears that arbcomm members feel a need to whack all participants in a case (as was done in the original Climate Change case, although this decision was later reversed). By the time an issue gets to the arbcomm there is likely to have been misbehaviour by all the parties (at the very least, edit-warring). How do you propose to deal with this in a manner that maintains balance?
- What is the difference between policy and guidelines? To what extent should the arbcomm "legislate from the bench"?
- What is your opinion on the removal of warnings?
- What does "wheel-warring" mean to you? At what point do you think the arbcomm should get involved?
- How do you think the recent Dbiv case was handled? How would you improve on that issue?
