Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives

unverifiable original research Ben-w 23:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it is verifiable. All you have to do is go to a dictionary and look up "ontology" and see that that term means what the article says it means. Same with all the other terms. Is this a shoot first and ask questions later approach? maybe you could have put something on my talk page? Whatever. FuelWagon 23:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Since when is it a good idea to VFD-tag an article, when it's only 9 minutes old? The NPOV tag is what you were looking for, Ben-w. This article was started to fill a very real void. Let's wait an see .. -- Ec5618 00:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Looks to me like something that should be in four different articles - we don't have an article on Communist capitalist autocracy democracy comparing and contrasting the different combinations of these terms. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Except that this isn't an article for four separate topics that just got jammed together. It's an article that is intended to explain the differences in ontology and methods between the two different sides on the Creationism-Versus-Science, Intelligent-Design-versus-Evolution, camps. There are currently several different articles that discuss these different issues, adn all of them share this same difference of views. Rather than have multiple articles report the same chunk of text, the idea was to have one article cover the difference in views and have all teh Creationism, ID, Teach the controversy articles reference this article. The article title sucks, but that can be fixed. I just wanted to start piecing something together so teh editors on the Creationism/ID/teach the controversy articles could take a look. Man, you guys are brutal. FuelWagon 00:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• The age of an article is IRRELEVANT. This is not an encylcopedic subject. Ben-w 00:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever, man. It's verifiable, because I've shown you a bunch of links. It's not original research because I added a couple of links to URL's to some reliable sources. The only thing it's got against it right now is a sucky title. Maybe if I had a little more time than 9 minutes to deal with it, either I or some of the editors on the ID/CS/teachthecontroversy articles could have come up with a better title. FuelWagon 00:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps it shouldn't be deleted (although I can hardly say it's a real void being filled) but it needs to be cleaned up not just for POV and style, but to assert the notability of the article in and of itself. The title of the article is confusing and i would agree that as it stands now it's original research, an essay rather than an article; i'm not sure wikipedia is the place for such an essay.Apollo58 00:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• On second thought, just deleteApollo58 00:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just someone working things out in their head. Useless to the rest of us. No-one else is likely to spend time making sense of it. Osomec 01:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Work on a title thats not so Jabberwockian. While these philosophy articles seem dry to me, I have nothing against them. Dan Watts 01:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- I think FuelWagon's intentions were good in creating this article, but I'm not sure that this article is about a legitimate subject. Joshuaschroeder 01:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep - this is interesting
• Delete - this looks like little more than a series of dicdefs. Maybe send to wiktionary. Rd232 11:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is nothing here which is unique to this article. Anything of merit could be covered under methodological naturalism. A better article would be something like "Intelligent Design critiques of methodological naturalism" as a sub-article of Intelligence Designt. It would have to be NPOV, heavily sourced, and arranged around actual critiques (such as those put forward by Johnston) rather than your own pocket definitions of terms. --Fastfission 13:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I've renamed the article "Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives". I don't want to use a name like "one sides critique of the other side" because it's inherently POV. I did use the term "evolutionary" because that's the one term that all the debates have in common. evolution v creationism. evolution v intelligent design, and because "intelligent design" folks usually distance themselves from the term "creationism", and also some of the "teach the controversy" folks don't even argue that they are for intelligent design, but that they are simply arguing that evolution has methodological problems, so they wont even want to be associated with the term "ID". Therefore the word "alternatives" was intended to reflect (evolution, creationism, creation science, intelligent design, teach the controversy, etc). as for my "pocket" definitions, the current definitions of terms were taken from dictionaries. And I've started to add quotes to show how the different sides use the terms to defend their side and/or criticize the other side. FuelWagon 13:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - The new title is better, it's nice to have a summary page of the four quadrants. Let's see how it develops. Redundancy with existing articles on the topic should be avoided. --Parker Whittle 13:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This article is one-stop-shopping to explain the different views of ontology and methodology around the topic of how life began on earth. It can act as a reference for all the articles about the evolution debate, including creationism, intelligent design, and teach the controversy. And it is limited specifically to the topic of how life began on earth, so while a separate article may exist for ontological supernaturalism, that article isn't limited to how life began on earth. This article is. FuelWagon 14:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I've moved the pieces that were relevant into teh methodological naturalism article. feel free to can this one. FuelWagon 20:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - FW, how about making it a user page for now. We'll put muscle on it there and then unleash this beast in the wild. Everyone else, how many people do you think are actually going to type in "Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives" and find this article. You are correct, zero. Right now, there is only one article that links to it. We can take down that link, beef this up, and then see if it meets wiki standards before linking it all over. David Bergan 14:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the choice is delete or push it into a user page, then I'd go for user page. I keep backing it up to my talk page because I'm not sure if I'll get any warning if someone makes the executive decision to delete it. I'm not sure how the VFD process works, so I'm backing it up. FuelWagon 14:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC) I've located the backup here User talk:FuelWagon/ontology. Though I'd prefer to keep editing the real article rather than the backup. FuelWagon 14:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: very real, encyclopedic topic which can be cited and sourced. FuelWagon is admirably interested in npov and primary sources. let it roll. Ungtss 15:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article consists of amateur philosophizing, is based on a false dichotomy, and propounds sheer untruths. Advaitins and some Buddhists, for example, do not subscribe to the distinction between ontological naturalism and supernaturalism on which the article depends. I believe that the same problem exists with methodological super/naturalism. It is possible to make the text neutral, but this will entail a complete rewrite. Article originator has many assumptions and opinions that he wants to put in the text, rendering this article basically flame bait. The problem is not only one of original research; it's that the research is from a particular point of view, and that the author denies that fact. Article is unsalvagable. --goethean ॐ 16:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that the article as it stands is incomplete and is grounded on a classic false-dichotomy, but it seems to me that those are not grounds to delete, but to edit and improve. Ungtss 17:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

goethean, as always, your neutral and unbiased and most humble opinion is revealing. Thank you for being a team player. FuelWagon 18:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and since buddhists and advaitins can be considered to be relatively uninvolved in the current evolution / creation / intelligentdesign / teachthecontroversy debate, their dispute of the entire world view isn't a problem. The creationists brought up the term "methodological naturalism" and evolutionists responded that the concept is separate from their "ontological supernaturalism". It is their debate that this article is reporting on. FuelWagon 18:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Your article implies that there are only two sides to "the evolution debate", when in fact there is a multiplicity of viewpoints, many of which reject the terminology that your article applies universally. --goethean ॐ 18:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

When creationists accuse evolutionists of "methodlogical naturalism", and when the reply says that is different than their "ontological supernaturalism", then this article applies exactly, and explains and represents both sides of those two points of view.If someoen is arguing for creation because "the bible says so", then this doesn't apply. That doesn't look like a problem to me. it applies universally to the topic about which it is titled: Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives. FuelWagon 19:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Pissing contests aside, I think both FuelWagon and goethean have good points. If the terms FuelWagon is using are being used by people "out there" to describe a dichotomy, and that dichotomy exists for a number of parties involved in the debate, then it deserves description. If the "philosophizing" is amateurish, then "professionalize" it. If there are those who find the dichotomy to be meaningless, then present that view, as well. It's all too easy to just hit the delete button. It's much more challenging, and valuable, and constructive to roll your sleeves up, employ a bit of the old gray matter and cooperate with others to craft a good article. Unsalvageable, indeed; gimme a break. --Parker Whittle 19:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Bunch of definitions plus some original research. Pilatus 20:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been torn on this one, and have spent a lot of time reading the article, and reading the above arguments. In the end, though, I just don't see that the topic is suitable for a separate article. It would be suitable for a journal paper, but not and encyclopædia article. Aspects of it would certainly be relevant in various other articles, as pointed out by other editors. This isn't a matter of the specific content at the moment (though I agree that it's in need of a great deal of work); it's the very specific, somewhat oblique topic itself. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  I'll just add, in response to one or two comments, that of course it exists; that isn't the issue. To say that it doesn't exist doesn't really make sense, in fact. There are lots of things that exist, however, which shouldn't have separate articles. For example, the ontology of possible istuations exists as a genuine topic, but it should be mentioned as part of a more general article on modality, or possible worlds. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't exist. Bensaccount 21:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. unencyclopedic. Alex.tan 03:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sourced research

In case anyone is curious.

Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural (1997)

Justifying Methodological Naturalism (2002)

I would have eventually put these links in teh article. I just didnt' think I'd get nailed 9 minutes after I created it and put on the defensive. Suffice it to say, this is not original research. These terms and concepts exist out in the real world. I'm not making this up. This is not original research. FuelWagon 01:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Great idea, maybe not right for a single article. There's a disambiguation page for naturalism. Can varieties of naturalism identified in the article go there? There are already articles on methodological naturalism, and I think philosophical naturalism covers "ontological naturalism." The only articles seeking homes would be the supernaturalism topics. Maybe a template that links them all together? --Parker Whittle 05:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This article was intended specifically to report the different philosophical/ontological/methodological views around evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and teach teh controversy topics. Yes, there is a methodological naturalism article, but that doesn't have to be limited to how life began on earth. and an article like Ontological supernaturalism really covers everythign from religious beliefs, mysticism, and transcendentalism. I'm specifically trying to limit this article to how these four views relate to the topic of how life began on earth. The term "methodological naturalism" has become an insult hurled by creationists against evolutionists. And evolutionists often respond that their methodology is separate from their ontology, i.e. that they can be natural scientists around evolution but still believe in god. So I want one article that explains ontology, that explains methodology, and how the different views show up in the debates around evolution, intelligent design, creationism, and the like. If a reader is going through an article on "Intelligent Design" and sees the term "methodological naturalism", for them to actually get all the different points of view around that term, they would have to go to four different articles. And those articles wouldn't neccessarily be limited to how life started on earth. FuelWagon 14:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. I'm willing to run with it. --Parker Whittle

[edit] new intro

I've rewritten the intro. enjoy. ignore. delete teh article. whatever. FuelWagon 22:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives (evolution, creationism, intelligent design, etc) have been attacked and defended by both sided of the debates.

Creationists call evolutionist's subscription to methodological naturalism a "religion to be accepted on faith"[1] and claim that "methodological naturalism cannot be justified as a normative principle for all types of science--without doing violence to science"[2]

Evolutionists respond that "methodological naturalism is not a 'doctrine' but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe."[3] "Science must assume that everything can be investigated empirically, but this doesn't force the abandonment of the supernatural, for those who want it."[4] Evolutionists defend their methodlogical naturalism and argue it does not exclude holding a religious belief system or an ontological supernaturalism.

These differing views implies four distinct worldviews: Ontological supernaturalism(OS), Ontological naturalism(ON), Methodlogical supernaturalism(MS), and Methodological naturalism(MN) which separate the debate.

[edit] Still looks like Original Research

Comment: FuelWagon, as it is much of it still looks like original research. I am not saying that it isn't interesting, only that much of it isnt applicable to wikipedia. Sections 1 to 3 don't have any references at all, they are just presented as bare statements. Who wrote the book or authored the website or wrote the essay that first presented this schema? Who later then further popularised it? Who are its proponents, who are its critics? et cetera. You should describe how this classification came about, proposed by so and so in this book or that website etc etc. If you can't do that, delete the above three sections

OTOH the Introduction and section 4 (Science and Religion) are good and assuming they aren't already covered elsewhere and this article is deleted they can be inorporated together on one of the other pages on the Creation-Evolution debate.

But the overall article at present is not valid as an encyclopaedia article as it is, although it could be made encyclopaedic if you address the above concerns. Also Goethean makes a very valid point that this whole classification would be limited or meaningless to those who hold or represent other perspectives. If the article is retained, this also has to be specified.

so Delete as is, or Make encyclopeadic and acknowledge other points of view

M Alan Kazlev 10:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.