Talk:Gaia theory/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Question: Should Olaf Stapledon should be included in the proposers of Gaia, due to his Starmaker novel, which describes collective minds, ranging from planets to galaxies?

But earlier Anthere objected that giving the designation "science" to the title of only one article implied that the related articles rested on a weaker foundation or were of second-class status. I happen to think a) that the designation "science" is neutral (it is when it appears on shelves in a bookstore, where you won't find a history of oil exploration, even though such a book is bound to contain primarily geology, statistics and reliable eye-witness testimony), and think that b) Anthere senses a derogatory implication only because she has been sensitized to the issue by the arguments about the Wikipedia articles, whereas even among people who share her perspective on Gaia theory I think virtually none would be as sensitive or make the same inference. But that's just a mixture of hunches and opinion from me. Even though I think the above scheme might be a little tidier (tidiest I still think would be one in which all the articles are "Gaia ()" and none have "theory" in the title), I thought the way Anthere said she wanted to proceed was fine. As you suggested, after all the arguing an agreement is nothing to sneeze at.168... 18:56 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hum :-). Perhaps are you right that science would be acceptable by most. I think what the most dangerous issue would be the risk to exclude from the article what is not currently proved by scientific means. But must admit the scientific aspect is on biology as well as chemestry, climatology, geology and ecology. All fitting in science. Besides, the idea of naming both article with "gaia theory" in them would be a good direction on the way of more neutrality toward people perceptions of the several senses and implications. I like that idea :-) I really don't like the idea of making the word theory disappear. One thing that bothers me is that "Gaia theory (mystical, social and environmental)" really is a long title. Can't see another title though. User:Anthere

How about "Gaia theory (Green/New Age)"? I don't know if "New Age" is a preferred term among the people its meant to refer to. If it's disfavored or viewed as derogatory, nevermind that suggestion.168... 21:04 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

sounds good to me, SLR

Sorry. It does not sound ok to me.

Why not? Could you explain why 168´s alternative is not okay to you? We will never get anywhere if we just say no I don´t like it without giving reasons. Slrubenstein

You sure you would not simply suggest Gaia theory and Gaia theory (science)?

No, definitely not -- as I have said before, there should be symmetry. If one Gaia theory article is qualified (e.g. science) then the other one should be as well.Slrubenstein

Anyway, RK, what do you think of

User:anthere

These three pages -- like the three 168 suggested -- are just as okay to me for the same reason, symmetry. Nevertheless, I would make the following changes: delete the "social" because it is redundant (both the mystical and environmental expressions of Gaia theory are social movements); also, change "environmental" to "green" (as, I think, 168 suggested). This is because the word "environmental" itself is too vague. Physical geographers and biologists study the environment, and one can speak of environmental science which would obviously belong in the Gaia theory (science) page. I assume that in this other page, "environmental" is meant to refer to a political and scoial movement. If this is the case, instead of using the word "environmental" which is too broad and thus vague, I like 168s idea of using "Green" which is adequately specific, as "green" refers only to the political and social movement. After all, the purpose of a disambiguation page is to avoid ambiguitites! Slrubenstein

This is fine by me. RK 02:08 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
SLR, your understanding of the compromise seems to conflict with mine when you write "one can speak of environmental science which would obviously belong in the Gaia theory (science) page." My understanding is that these articles are not a means to segregate all content but rather are allowed to overlap. When I proposed the long-titled article, I characterized the content that I imagined would be in it as
  • "Gaia (mystical, social and environmental)" - on ancient ideas and their modern, Lovelock-inspired kin, including the supposition that the Earth is conscious and a discussion of scientific support and links out to the hard-science articles
In other words, we have been supposing that the article will make some mention of the science that is seen as the inspiration and/or support of the movements and beliefs. Although the title is long, I think it does have the advantage that it is more inclusive and less tinged with partisanship than "Green." I don't think "social" is redundant either. I guess it is redundant if you imagine that the word all three adjectives are modifying is "movement," but the word movement isn't there (perhaps this is a problem). Given that it isn't, if you don't know what the article is about already, I think "social" is extremely helpful. After all, Tibetan tantric buddhist meditation is mystical, but it's not social. Likewise, climate change is environmental, but not social. Anyway, just because there's kinds of "environmental" that don't appear in an article is no reason "environmental" can't appear in its title. e.g. "Science" includes astrophysics, but we aren't arguing about "science" being in the title "[[Gaia theory (science)[[". 168... 16:19 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifiaction. Also, I want to stress that all I am trying to do is expressmore clearly my own notion -- if 168, RK, and Anthere agree to a different position please do not let my view get in the way. I understand, as 168 points out, that there will be some overlap between the articles. Nor am I commited to "Green" -- someone else suggested it and I see its merit, but if it is too partisan or if there are other problems with it, I have no argument for using it. I guess my main point is that those who identify themselves with the term "environmental" are a heterogenous lot, and some of their views will belong more in one article, and others in another article. There are environmental scientists who use the notion of Gaia, but not in the way that some environmentalists (let alone mystics) use the term. What would you think of changing the word "environmental" in this article title to "environmentalist?" SLR

Except for the extra three letters to a long title, I don't see a strong reason to object, but then I don't really understand why you are in favor of it either. There are physicists who use the notion of cosmology, but I don't see that as a reason not to have an article "Kabbalah (cosmology)", even though its notions are bound to differ. Furthermore, I think the broader Gaia ideas do pertain to the environment, and not just to environmentalists or environmentalism.168... 21:37 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don´t see "physics (cosmology)" and "Kabbalah (cosmology)" as analogous to "Gaia theory (science)" and "Gaia theory (environmental)." The purpose of the paranthetical in the Gaia case is to dismbiguate. But the difference between an article on physics and an article on Kabbalah is already clear and there is no need for disambiguation; hee the paranthetical merely indicates a sub-topic. And if that is all the parantheticals were doing here, I would agree with you entirely: there is no reason that two different articles can both have the environment as a sub-topic. But the main title of the two articles are the same ("Gaia theory)," so the disambiguation must be clear. In my mind, there is a difference between how natural scientists talk about the environment, and how social or political activists talk about it (although as you pointed out above, there is of course some overlap, overlap which the articles should represent). So I think the disambiguation (the paranthetical) should ´´somehow´´ indicate this. For example, we could contrast (environmental science) with (environmentalist movement). I am sure we can come up with other, perhaps even better, ways to disambiguate -- I am merely trying to provide an example that is consistent with my point. Slrubenstein
O.K.. I take your point about disambiguation and how the context of the parenthetical is different for Kabbala vs Physics. Thanks for explaining. You make what I'd say is an water-tight case against using "environmental" as the sole disambiguating descriptor, and you've made me less enthusiastic for it than I was, and yet I don't think the word is quite useless when paired with "mystical" and "social" and set against "Gaia theory(science)." 168... 02:33 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am not too keen on "green", which I find is narrowing the topic. My perception of New Age is that some perceive it as derogatory. I paste below a suggestion which was left in the Gaia theory (biology) talk page. It means to prose Gaia theory (social) as a general term for Gaia theory (mystical, social and environmental) User:Anthere

Okay, I still don´t share your enthusiasm for this way of disambiguating, but I understand your pbjections to Green and New Age (although I believe that these are terms of self-identification; it is my sense that the term "New Age" is not itself derrogatory, it is just that many people have a low oppinion of the New Age movement. I think this is like what happens in my country when Republicans use the word "liberal" -- they cannot say the word without sneering. But the word "liberal" itself is not derogatory and of coursae liberals embrace the word). In any event, thank you for providing your reasons. Slrubenstein
Slr, I didnot understand what you meant by "my enthusiasm for this way of dis". Did you mean the proposition of "Gaia theory (social)" ? Or something else ?
I mean, I just am not thrilled with "social." But honestly, this is not a strong objection. If you like it and others do too, I am not going to argue. Please take my remarks more in the spirit of brainstorming than arguing -- I think there is a value to throwing out ideas but as long as the two articles in question either both have the word theory in the title, or neither do (i.e symmetry), I really am happy to accept the emerging consensus.Slrubenstein
I agree the term New Age might not be derogatory in itself. But may have for some this image. I think two people recently used it while giving to it the low opinion feeling. However, I recognise I can be absolutely wrong with that word. It is not easy for me to be aware of the hidden perceptions of a word as used in another language, and very possibly, my perception is wrong. It is possible my perception is such, because the qualifier New Age is quite derogatory in french. It suggests sect, astrology, occultism, stone healing powers...all things that do not necessarily have relationship with Gaia (though Gaia and holism are part of New Age).
Okay, this is a very clear and convincing reason, I agree with you Slrubenstein
All things often assimilated as pseudo-science, and as such likely to be rejected by scientifics. As if somehow, there was the serious article with good science, and the non-serious one, filled with dreams and fantasms.
Still, I think some scientifics go further than just science on the topic, and would feel perhaps troubled to be confused with new age mouvement. Also, what troubles me with this word is that it is initially a mouvement born in the US.
Another convincing reason. I already agree with you but really appreciate your spelling out these reasons. Slrubenstein
It sounds POV to me. Because new age currently exist mostly in the us, a bit in great britain, and little in rest of europe. It is a sort of alternative to the western culture, in particular anglosaxon culture. So, what about the others ? But again, this is just my perception. If it is just mine and does not hold reality for readers, please do not consider it. However, I think the theory and the article content is not limited to westerners, and I think the article is not limited to english readers. New age just suggest me this. I hope you understand :-)

I like the general division, but propose putting all the soft-science stuff (Gaia theory analogs), plus the social groups (Gaians) under "Gaia theory (social)", with "Gaians" as a redirect to that page. The rest seems sensible. I'm happy things are converging. Steve Rapaport 19:02 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

We should keep the article on Gaians separate; they are a specific (albeit, loose) group, and not just a concept or theory. Wikipedia has room to have a separate article on all political, environmental, and religious groups (at least, all that we have time to write about.) RK
How would people feel if, instead of (mystical, social, environmental) we just had Gaia Theory (popular)? I appreciate 168´s concerns about a too-long paranthetical, and I think this word accomodates much of the content. But pehaps it doesn´´t accomodate all of it. And I hasten to add that I personally do not think the word "popular" is in any way demeaning or dismissive, and I understand that if most people think the term is dismissive, it would not be appropriate. Slrubenstein

How would you all perceive "Gaia theory (social)" ? user:anthere

I like "Gaia theory (popular)" better than "Gaia theory (social)". To me "social" in this context suggests the article is mainly about social behavior, rather than about ideas, some of which relate to activism and public policy, and some of which may not. "Popular" on the other hand suggests to me the ideas that most ordinary people associate with Gaia theory.168... 02:33 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

let's drop social then. But I am not very convinced with popular myself.
Here is why. Let me explain my perception of the word to be sure. In French, it is a derogatory word again (as it is often confused with oversimplification, or crude art and entertainment as appreciated by poorly educated people). It is not always meant in that sense, but it would be wrong to neglect that usage. However, it is my understanding it is no such case in English, were "popular" refers to "general public" , as opposed to specialists. Such as in "popular work", a generalization of a specialist work, to make it available (reachable) to layman (by removing too complex notions or jargon - what we try to do here, yes ?). Or it appears to me it refers to widely known or believed or supported facts/ideas...such as in "popular misconception" or "this is not a popular suggestion".

Is it the right perception of the word ? If I apply this to our case, it could implies either

  • that this article is explaining the most commonly known/believed/supported definition of Gaia Theory. And though I think all perspectives are important, I don't think the content of the science article could be said to be least used.
  • that this article is a set of simplified scientific facts for general public, as opposed to the specialist article (science). Which would not recover well the content of the article.
  • that this article is a set of simplified points on the topic (but not scientific), whereas the other article is more complicated stuff (which is not the case, as both should be made as much as possible available to anyone)
  • or finally, that this article is a set of general public concerns on the topic

Again, this is my perception.

I think what recovers New Age stuff could go well under this title. But, new age stuff is not all there is about it. The Gaia theory is being recognized more clearly as an issue for serious ethical, political, and theological reflection as well. Within this reflection are being questionned the specific role of the human in the current environmental crisis, and perhaps the "vocation» of the human in creating and helping to solve this crisis. A lot of the content of the article should explore the place of the human in the world, and perhaps show how some social, economical and cultural analysis propose to see how humans could impact the life-systems of the planet. If and how they destabilize it, and if and how they can help stabilization. Those following christianism theology try to work past the anthropocentrist notion of world creation, where humans are seen as the driving, dominating and superior species. Other frameworks are looking at the role of humans, but I think the Gaia hypothesis is one of the few ones using scientific background, as well as religious/mystical approach for an integrated solution. Whether the theory is wrong or right, is not very relevant in this article perhaps. The theory not only inspired scientifics and new age movement, but also theological, philosophical and ethical responses. There was a "missa Gaia", an atlas of planet management, some books relevant to buddhism. The theory has also been strongly in relation with ecofeminism, feminists being able to focus on a female deity rather than the always malish reprensentation of God. The Theory as presented by Margulis also suggest that not only competition is important in evolution, but also cooperation, much more favorable to females. W. Thompson has been working on philosophical interpretation of the theory. He supports the fact that we are only planet managers, just as ants on a log, moved around by a strong current, and busy working on something upon which we have no control whatsoever. Apparently, just as Lovelock, he supports the fact humans have a limited impact on gaia processes. Or A. Weston considering the ethical aspects of the theory, one being relevant with modern ethical philosophy while the other one is relevant to deep ecology. He notes the fact Lovelock insist very much on the fact Gaia is powerful, but does not so much on human responsabilities. From the deep ecology perspective, the man being a species just as the other ones, has to consider himself as part of a global processus. Must feel in his guts the suffuring of the planet, helping to empathize with it. But this approach involves a degree of communication and identification between the different species, that scientific theoricians do not explore really. Another approach would be to consider Gaia as an organism, ever more, as a person. But thus doing would imply to redefine what a person is.

Here, I am indeed very curious, because deep ecology arose in anglosaxons countries, and is basically non-existant in my country, and I have the feeling the french perception of the various implications of Gaia theory are quite different from the english one. But, these reflections are carried out by philosophers, ethical researchers, theologists. Not that I know much of these, but I would call them "specialists" in their topic as well. I would like very much someone to explain better all this, so implications of the theory could be clearer.

And, right. All this, does not fit very well with my conception of "popular". Perhaps I am wrong though. User:anthere

Anthere, I think you have correctly expressed the different senses that "popular" has in English and make a good case for why some of them are inappropriate for the article we are talking about applying the word to. Yet I think one difference from French usage may be that there is a still living tradition of using "popular" in distinct senses, so that it a particular instance it need not carry all those connotations at once (not that one doesn't have to be careful, or that in certain contexts one wouldn't do better to choose a different words, just to be sure of avoiding the unwanted connations). e.g. There are the magazines "Popular Science" and "Popular Mechanics." Also, I think that in the context of Wikipedia, the articles of which hew to a common style, we are insured against people interpreting "popular" to mean that one article is for a general audience and another is for experts.

I agree that it would be a problem if there exist people who specialize in the ideas that we are considering calling "popular," but only under certain conditions that I don't think apply here. e.g. If there were university departments or academic societies called "Gaia theory" that existed to address the ideas we want to call "popular," and if most of the people who thought about these ideas were either these specialists themselves or were people who saw themselves as followers of these specialists. In other words, if the ideas don't exist as part of an institutionalized tradition specifically built around them, to me that pushes them toward "popular," and I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Just because there exist people who listen only to "classical" music and who sneer at "popular" music doesn't mean that it wouldn't be neutral to describe the music of Louis Armstrong or Robert Johnson as, in some social and historical context, "popular." I'm not saying the word is perfect for our needs, but I don't see it as truly problematic in the way that you hypothesize it might be. 168... 17:53 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

WHoops. I neglected your point that "I don't think the content of the science article could be said to be least used." That could be problematic. I wonder if that's true, though, or in what sense it's true. There are fewer molecular biologists who use "gene" than there are ordinary people who know little science who use the term; and yet so many molecular biologists use it so many times per day that technical usages of "gene" may outnumber non-technical ones. So then I might say that the content of an article on the technical usage of "gene" might cover the "most used" meanings. Yet there still exists a "popular" usage of the term (which actually gets discussed in the gene article), and it's apt to label this usage as such. I suppose you could imagine a small subculture who are fascinated by a highly populated profession: young boys Colorado who love the aerospace industry, and who have adopted some aerospace terms that the general public doesn't know, but who (being naive and uneducated) use them in a way that disagrees somewhat with how hundreds of thousands of aerospace industry people use them. It's an odd situation, but I think I might well refer to their understanding of the terms as "popular" in certain contexts. As in your example of a "popular work," the work need not be famous or widely liked, just for non-experts. 168... 19:32 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, we kind of do need to decide on words to use. I am open to any of the above stated possibilities. RK 17:57 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just in case it isn't obvious, I'm open to all of the above too.168... 19:00 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Me too. And although I am sure this is evident to most, I have to say I really think that the last several rounds of discussion are a model of how things ought to work on a talk page -- I think everyone has been both extremely civil and extremely thoughtful. I think every commetn has made me think more or has taught me something. Slr

well, I am glad of that Slr. I appreciated yours and 168 comments and suggestions very much. I thank you two deeply for this. I think the most important thing is that we appear to agree on the number of articles, and basically on what should go in each of them. So, right, we have to decide ourselves. To be frank, I am not very happy with Gaia theory (mystical, social and environmental) and Gaia theory (popular) but no other idea appeared, so let it be. Perhaps, later, someone else may have another idea. I think the first one is perhaps too long, and I gave my position on the second. But none of these points should block things going on, and none make the renaming unacceptable. So, either of these two will be ok to me. ant
We don't need to stick to the proposed naming convention; what about "Ecology, Environmentalism and Gaia theory", "Politics and Gaia theory", etc? RK 02:02 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ecology is a scientific field RK, and it is part of the science article. Well, I will rename it "Gaia theory (mystical, social and environmental)". If anyone comes up later with another title idea, he is most welcome. Anthère

moved from another talk page

The article claims "Buckminster Fuller is generally credited with making the idea respectable in Western scientific circles in the 20th century."

Really? I have never read a statement link this from any scientist. To whoever made this statement, please clarify, and provide sources. RK 15:26 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Who are you exactly talking to ? Anthere
To anyone who wrote it. RK