Talk:Thomas Henry Huxley and agnosticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
Of course, as this article is ancient, it has a pro-christian slant to it as well...
Contents |
[edit] Redundancy
This arcticle seems completely redundant to me, since Wikipedia has an arcticle for Huxley and another for Agnosticism. Each of this two should have some history about Huxley and the invention of the term Agnosticism, but an arcticle for this sole purpose seems useless and very unusual for Wikipedian standards.
[edit] Arguability
While there is hypothetical merit in calling this redundant, it is not in my experience so unusual. There are in my estimation equally valid arguments for the folding of most of this into either Huxley's entry or Agnosticism's, creating a problem of which. Most of what is useful here are specific quotations from Huxley (that could use external links to a source such as Project Gutenberg where they can be found, if not in Wikisource.)
"...which has turned the controversies between religion and science into other channels and removed the temptation to flaunt a disagreement."
However is a gross simplification, and frankly a miss statement. The differences between evolutionists and creationists in large remain very hot, and often ill tempered. The idea expressed here is from a subgrouping of christians who have partially embraced evolution to any varied degree. This muddying serves to a degree the attitude of some scientists also who detest the debate and view it unworthy, and some of them propose the acceptibility of an 'irelivent' (to the origin of life) God, since it saves hastle. Yet that is mearly my opinion.
Still the quotations here are of great use in understanding both Huxley the man, and agnosticism the idea.
[edit] Suggestion
I would suggest moving the text of this article to the T.Huxley article, Huxley on agnosticism does not imho merit a seperate article. --Isolani 09:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No references & biased language
This article currently has no listed verifiable references or sources. Moreover, it has numerous bits of "information" that reflect the author's opinion without having any seperate source backing it up. For example, it talks about "misconceptions" regarding agnosticism, but doesn't list a verifiable reference to back up its claim.
Just my opinion, but this particular article appears to be primarilly original research into Thomas Henry Huxley's views on agnosticism, as opposed to an article constructed from outside reliable sources. My two suggestions are:
1) List actual references for verifiable information contained in the article
2) As suggested above, consider merging the verifiable sections of the article with articles on Thomas Henry Huxley and agnosticism as appropriate. Having this topic on a seperate page appears to be redundant.
Specific claims from this article that would require a reference and/or appear to be the author's opinion include:
"...the expressions "agnostic" and "agnosticism" were applied by T. H. Huxley to sum up his deductions from (on that time) contemporary developments of metaphysics about the "unconditioned" (Hamilton) and the "unknowable" (Herbert Spencer)." - Needs references for sources
"It is important, therefore, to discover Huxley's own views on the matter." - Important to who? Appears to be the author's opinion.
"Though Huxley began to use the term "agnostic" in 1869,..." - reference?
..."This account is confirmed by R. H. Hutton, who in 1881 wrote that the word 'was suggested by Huxley at a meeting held previous to the formation of the now defunct Metaphysical Society at Mr Knowles's house on Clapham Common in 1869, in my hearing. He took it from St Paul's mention of the altar to the Unknown God.'..." - needs reference
"Hutton himself frequently misrepresented the doctrine by describing it as "belief in an unknown and unknowable God"" - The word "misrepresented" appears to be the author's opinion (ie the author believes Hutton "misrepresented" the doctrine, but it's possible the author is incorrect and other readers might believe Hutton's representation was more accurate). If there are authors that state that Hutton did, in fact, "misrepresent" the doctrine, they should be quoted as such with appropriate reference. Otherwise, the article should simply read something like "Hutton himself frequently described the doctrine as ...etc...."
...Agnosticism really rests on the doctrine of the Unknowable, the assertion that belief about certain objects—among them the Deity— can never have any "scientific" ground. This way of solving, or passing over, the ultimate problems of thought has had many followers. It has been popular in cultured and scientific circles that were tired of dogmatic creeds of contemporary orthodoxy. The support of agnosticism by eminent physicists like Huxley greatly influenced modern metaphysical speculations and even the form that subsequent Christian apologetics adopted. - this entire paragraph appears to be the author's opinion on the subject.
The final two paragraphs likewise appear to be the author's opinion or original research on the subject as opposed to statements taken directly from a verifiable source.
