Talk:Weasel program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weasel program has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Richard Dawkins isn't an etiologist. You should think before you start to write.

H. W. Boger

That was a typo; I copied the link from elsewhere, sorry! And BTW, you might try to be helpful (e.g. by fixing the error) instead of being an ass. MFNickster 18:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I added a external link which shows what a sham Dawkin's weasel program is

I added a external link which shows what a sham Dawkin's weasel program is. Here it is: Dawkins’ weasel revisited ken 12:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

And I moved it to the bottom of the list and identified the link to show what a sham it is. :-) Cheers, Vsmith 13:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you take Ted Haggard's side, then? You can fool some of the people all of the time. If you simply stopped long enough to read "A Blind Watchmaker," maybe you'd realize how foolish you are. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 07:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticism of the Critics"

The new Criticism of the Critics section is, in my eyes, misplaced. It doesn't really seem to be about the Weasel Program at all. It refutes criticisms that aren't mentioned in the rest of the article, and the general tone is unencyclopediac. I propose that the section be removed. I will do so in a couple days if there are no objections. Alex Dodge 01:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest at least mentioning that those who criticize his theories have used fallacies (errors in logic) such as red herring and non sequitirs to attack him. The POV is not balanced as we have criticism of Dawkins yet no criticism of the critics. If you think it's too much, then edit it down to one example.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried to rewrite it, but I realized that I said exactly the same thing as in the previous section. So, I removed the section. Perhaps we can draft a section here and then move it in. In my opinion, the program stands on its own. The only criticism we have of the program in this article (that is has a designed target end point) is discounted in the next paragraph by the statement that this misconstrues the purpose of the program. Alex Dodge 19:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Dodge, that's not acceptable. First off, we have someone attaching a well-written but fallacious Christian apologist attack. We need to either remove the apologist link, or respond to it in a fair manner. One issue with Wikipedia is to give people information to help them understand things. An apologist attack adds smoke and mirrors. We give them the 'right' to critize the weasel program, yet their own 'arguments' are simply logical fallacies, something that the average reader might not notice. At the very least, the Weasel program is controversial, not because it is wrong, but because some people see it as a threat to their religious beliefs. As such, there is a 'controversy' component. As noted, 'many people' became atheists or left their church after Richard Dawkin's writing. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad, but it is relevant.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. Perhaps you'll reconsider when I've made my points. As I see it, the section as it is addresses several logical fallacies which have been used to try to discredit evolution. The quotes and the responses don't particularly have anything to do with the Weasel program, specifically. I see now the link you're talking about. I don't understand why it's in the article, and I don't see the need to respond to it. I think the link (as well as the other links to similar silliness) could be safely removed, which removes the need for the section.

I had removed the section, as I said, so that it could be revised in the talk page if it was decided that it needed to exist. As it is, it reads more like a defensive rant than an encyclopedia article. I would try to rewrite it myself, but I'm not yet convinced it's a valid section. If it is included, it will need to be written carefully, with a clear goal and a clear argument.Alex Dodge 08:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to delete the apologist link as inappropriate. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is done. Does this agree with you? Alex Dodge 11:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transcription error?

It looks as though the fourth character of the first line of sample output is missing. I could of course replace it with any random letter (except H), but I’m not sure whether the sample is quoted from the book or generated for this page. -Ahruman 01:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a comment in that section which says "Note: first generation is 27 characters, but it is verbatim as Dawkins gave it in the book. Perhaps the first or last character is a space." I dug out the book and verified that the examples match Dawkins's text. MFNickster 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)