Talk:Forrest Mims

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Creationism Portal This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Forrest Mims did not Misrepresent Prof. Eric Pianka's Statements 2 Verification? 3 Controversy 4 Reference needed

[edit] Forrest Mims did not Misrepresent Prof. Eric Pianka's Statements

209.208.77.219 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Mims-Pianka controversy#Forrest_Mims_did_not_Misrepresent_Prof._Eric_Pianka.27s_Statements

Removed from this page. No point to troll anonymously on three different pages. DLX 05:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never "troll[ed]" in my life, nor would I. Neither am I anonymous: my legal name is James Redford. 209.208.77.168 22:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are anonymous in so far as you have an IP address, not a user name. JoshuaZ 23:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are using some technical idiom when you say "anonymous." My legal name is James Redford. Hardly am I anonymous. And for future reference, you would do well to write it "insofar," as opposed to "in so far." 209.208.77.168 23:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Not logged in == we can see only IP == anonymous. And posting lengthy comment to three different talk pages is trolling. Q.E.D DLX 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Your first sentence is a non sequiter, and hence hardly qualifies as quod erat demonstrandum. Your second sentence doesn't even follow an attempted logical progression, but instead requires the reader to assume its asserted truth on its face, and hence it also does not qualify as quod erat demonstrandum.

Concerning your first sentence, it is most definitely a non sequiter because I have repeatedly given my legal name--James Redford--which provides far less actual anonymity for me than if I had used some made-up log-in name like "DLX."

As regards your second sentence, I have never posted anything with ill intent, and my commentary was posted on extactly the Talk pages where it was quite relevant. Hence, it is quite a bit more than absurd to accuse me of trolling. One making such a chimerical accusation reveals far more about themself than it does about me. 209.208.77.220 21:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this was not well explained above. The step in the above from "not logged in" to "We can see only IP" is an implication, the next step is definitionally. A user is defined on Wikipedia to be anonymous if they do not have a user name. In general, anonymous users are taken less seriously and presumed to be more pov pushing than registered users. This presumption is born out by a large amount of experience. In contrast, registering demonstrates a minimal commitment to the project that will generally make people more likely to listen to you. JoshuaZ 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, some technical idiom. But don't confuse technical idioms with the words as they are understood by most people who use said words. I could define the sky as being, in part, "a dark monster coming to consume you," and when people object I could simply say that by "a dark monster coming to consume you" it is meant "blue." And I would be right by definition (if we agree that the sky is at least sometimes blue).

So also, I could be defined as "the most destructive force in the known universe," and when someone (such as myself) objects, the person asserting this could simply say that by "the most destructive force in the known universe" it is meant "a person who didn't log-in to Wikipedia to post their comment." And said person would be right by definition.

The point being is that I am, in actual fact, far less anonymous than people using log-in names such as "DLX" or "JoshuaZ."

As far as me being taken less seriously than if I had logged in, that's a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. 209.208.77.220 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually no it isn't a logically fallacious ad hominem, since there is a limited amount of time that editors have. If an editor said "209.208.77.220's argument is unsound because 209.* is an anon" that would be a fallacious ad hominem attack. However, if a user says "I haven't had time to look at 209.*'s argument but he is an anon who posted it in multiple locations on a controversial. These are strong signs of an arguments poor quality. I won't bother to evaluate it" that is a logical position. JoshuaZ 22:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your above argument is a non sequiter. It's still an ad hominem, since it doesn't address the arguments made by the person, but instead concerns details surrounding the person. I know you don't like to think of it as an ad hominem, because apparently that thought doesn't sit well with you, but despite your unease with that thought it is still an ad hominem nonetheless. 209.208.77.220 22:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verification?

Can anyone verify this claim:

"He wrote some Amateur Scientist columns for Scientific American magazine in 1990, but the magazine refused to hire him after discovering that Mims was a creationist and had doubts about evolution. However, the magazine did say that Mims' work was "great", "fabulous" and "should be published somewhere.""

Considering that quite a lot of things from this guy are snake oil, I really wouldn't put this claim here w/o any (independent!) sources. DLX on 07:14, 3 April 2006]]

Here's what Mim's had to say about SciAm. MarcoTolo 18:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy should be expanded - possibly from Eric Pianka article? DLX 06:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA320_1.html on that controversy, as it is a bit more complex than it might initially appear. — Dunc|☺ 10:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, a good link - will include this to the article DLX 11:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Transcript of Pianka's speech. Whole controversy should be expanded, to show it as an smear campain against Pianka and evolution in general - or would link to Pianka's article be enough? Also William Dembski's campain?

[edit] Reference needed

I removed the sentence "NASA has sent Mims and his instruments to several of the Western states and twice to Brazil to measure the effects of smoke from large wildfires." pending a reliable reference. -- MarcoTolo 23:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)