Talk:International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Dembski ground-breaking? please. I'll try and sort the POV out. Dunc|☺ 14:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Excluding mainstream research

Can you prove that? If so I don't mind it being in there but without a source it is POVish while the original wording of the sentence was more neutral. Thanks. Falphin 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It's an easily verified fact, not POV. The best source being their own journal, PCID [1]. That the journal has yet to publish any significant mainstream research that contradicts ID is easily fact-checked by simply reading their volumes. The same holds true of their archives [2]. They state their bias up front: "Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) is a quarterly, cross-disciplinary, online journal that investigates complex systems apart from external programmatic constraints like materialism, naturalism, or reductionism". In other words, they implement their own systemic bias while obliquely accusing mainstream science of having it's own. FeloniousMonk 07:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk - you must show evidence for "excluding the preponderance of mainstream research being conducted that contradicts intelligent design." It is not a stated position of the ISCID journal. WIKI policy is for only verifiable evidence. To demonstrate this, you must show that at least one such article was submitted and that it was rejected. Because no one submitted such an article does not prove "excluding mainstream research." Furthermore, "Mainstream research" begs the question since it presumes methodological naturalism and a priori excludes looking for intelligent design. You cannot find intelligent causation if you a priori exclude it. e.g., forensics experts investigating a fire do not a priori assume no person was involved and only look for natural causes. To investigate for arson, they must assume that intelligent causation may be a possibility and examine evidence for/against it. Intelligent design models and examines empirical evidence for intelligent causation in curret, historical and origins research. I agree with Falphin in quering this phrase. I recommend that it be deleted as POV non-sequetor without verifiable evidence.DLH 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what ID proponents say. But since they are the ones making the assertions the burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claims. Preferably by using neutral (non pro-ID), credible sources, which we have yet to see. FeloniousMonk 05:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes

ISCID states that it investigates complex systems, discusses complex systems in its forum, accepts into its archive articles on all aspects of complex systems, publishes papers on complex systems in PCID, and hosts chats about topics related to complex systems. I propose adding "investigates complex systems" to the introduction. I also propose replacing

Critics in the scientific community say that intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor, and point to ISCID's journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design as such an example, since reviewers in the PCID journal consist entirely of intelligent design supporters.

with

Critics say that intelligent-design proponents have set up their own journals with a weak standard of "peer review", and point to ISCID's journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design as an example, since reviewers in PCID consist almost exclusively of intelligent-design supporters.

The critics we cite are a philosophy professor, a law professor, the editor of a Web site, and a genomics researcher. Only the last of these is obviously a practicing scientist, so "in the scientific community" seems misleading. The replacement paragraph also follows the sources more closely: "weak standard" and "almost exclusively" are quotes. Tim Smith 11:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Immanual Kant's comments about justification of truth, written in 1800 but equally applicable today.
  • "Truth is said to consist in the agreement of knowledge with the object. According to this mere verbal definition, then, my knowledge, in order to be true, must agree with the object. Now, I can only compare the object with my knowledge by this means, namely, by taking knowledge of it. My knowledge, then, is to be verified by itself, which is far from being sufficient for truth. For as the object is external to me, and the knowledge is in me, I can only judge whether my knowledge of the object agrees with my knowledge of the object. Such a circle in explanation was called by the ancients Diallelos. And the logicians were accused of this fallacy by the sceptics, who remarked that this account of truth was as if a man before a judicial tribunal should make a statement, and appeal in support of it to a witness whom no one knows, but who defends his own credibility by saying that the man who had called him as a witness is an honourable man." From Introduction to Logic.
Kenosis 23:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you have a specific comment? Tim Smith 02:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I had hoped not to need one, but here is a more specific comment. The evidence is that the PCID reviewers consist entirely of ID supporters. It the language indicating the specific sources of this evidence needs to be corrected, I have no objection. ... Kenosis 05:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll reword it to quote the sources exactly. Tim Smith 21:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I see the light a bit better now. Well, if the editor(s) here prefer(s) to cherrypick the sources, I suppose that would lead to a different result, wouldn't it? ... which leads us right back to Kant quote again, I suppose. ... Kenosis 22:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see new sources for "entirely". Where are they? I tried quoting our sources exactly, but was reverted. Tim Smith 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edits, I encourage everyone to engage in discussion here. Please do not revert uncontroversial changes; the last revert reintroduced a comma splice and a typo I've had to fix twice now. Because my last edit was reverted wholesale, typo fix and all, I don't know which changes are actually controversial, and which were reversed blindly. Please restore any changes you support and discuss the rest here. Tim Smith 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Moderator: Regarding the "Regarding the recent edits..." comment above, I too enourage genuine talk page discussion. One might start by fixing the obvious typos. (Translation 1: "Pardon me while I fix this typo... and while I'm at it I may as well throw in my own POVs throughout the entire article". Translation 2: "Ohhh, pooor me; I've had to fix that darn thing twice now, and every time I try to rewrite the whole article someone reverts me".) Fixing the typo and comma splice requires two or three keystrokes. I ran my spellchecker-- it must be broken because I couldn't find any misspelled words. In any event the convention in WP, as I understand it, is if one has typos to fix, one fixes them and identifies the maneuver accordingly in the edit summary. ... Kenosis 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Which I did. Another convention is that one does not revert the typo fixes of others, especially when they are noted in the edit summary and obvious in the diff. It's easy to see that the typo is "ICSID". Please adopt a civil tone and assume good faith. Since my changes were reverted wholesale, typo fix and all, I'll try again. Discussion here, please. Tim Smith 03:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not the typos being fixed or not that is the concern, but how these changes conform to WP:NPOV. I see some noticeable issues in them giving undue weight to ISCID polemical position in relation to that of the mainstream, majority scientific community. This will need to be addressed since all significant relevant viewpoints need to be presented in proportion to their significance. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More proposals

Thanks to the industry of my fellow editors, the two-sentence "PCID peer review controversy" section now cites seven sources and the "Notes and references" section rivals the article in length. Let's be careful to match the sources to what they actually support:

Statement Support
lack of peer-reviewed support for ID Judge Jones (both cites), Behe
criticism of PCID's review process Isaak, Inlay, Brauer/Forrest/Gey
characterization of PCID reviewers Isaak, ISCID, Brauer/Forrest/Gey

"In the scientific community" still seems misleading because although Brauer and Inlay are practicing scientists, Forrest, Gey, and Jones are not. And many ISCID fellows themselves belong to the scientific community: Henry F. Schaefer, Guillermo Gonzalez, Robert Kaita, et al. I'd also still prefer exact quotes about the PCID reviewers. So how about:

Critics say that intelligent-design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lacks impartiality and rigor, and point to ISCID's journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design as an example, characterizing the ISCID fellows who comprise PCID's reviewers as "ardent supporters of intelligent design" and as having been "drawn almost exclusively from ID proponents."

Comments? Tim Smith 11:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a view widely held in the scientific community, and as long as the quotes are accurate and consistent with other statements that scientists like Myers and Elsberry have made, and consistent with what is said in other significant sources like the Dover ruling, it's fine. We can always add more sources, but the making necessary assumptions of the NPOV policy, WP:NPOVFAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions, says that it's not necessary to rehash this at every article. There's also been some discussion on this very issue at the wikien-l mailing list lately. [3]
So, let's not get too legalistic here over cites and belabor the point or the article with demands for more and more specific citations; anyone involved in the ID debate has seen members of the scientific community make the claim and recognizes the existing cite to be accurate and representative, and knows that the scientific community as a whole, as well as a federal court now, say that ID lacks proper peer review is one of the reasons ID is rejected as legitimate science. This is already properly pointed out at the ID article and elsewhere. It does not need to be rehashed here again as well. The current cite is sufficient, additional cites can be added, but the point is accurate and will need to remain in its present form. FeloniousMonk 15:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's take the statements separately. They concern (1) lack of peer-reviewed support for ID, (2) criticism of PCID's review process, and (3) characterization of PCID reviewers. I agree that we don't need to rehash 1; in fact, I think the original Dover citation is sufficient for that sentence, and that we don't need Behe or the other Dover cite. 2 and 3, though, concern PCID specifically, and since there is no PCID article, I do think we need to hash them out here. For 2, it is misleading to write that "critics in the scientific community point to PCID as an example of such-and-such" when the cited critics are two in number and not sufficiently notable representatives of that community to have earned Wikipedia articles, and when many PCID reviewers themselves belong to the scientific community. For 3, it is misleading to write that "reviewers in the PCID journal consist entirely of intelligent design supporters" and then cite a court ruling which does not mention PCID, testimony by Michael Behe which does not mention PCID, a page on the ISCID Web site which says nothing about intelligent design, and a paper published in a law journal and written by mostly non-scientists which says "almost exclusively", not "entirely". Tim Smith 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISCID fellows who are also Discovery Institute fellows

Of the 59 ISCID fellows, 16 are also fellows at the Discover Institute: Michael J. Behe -- Senior Fellow, CSC, J. Budziszewski -- Fellow, CSC, John Angus Campbell -- Fellow, CSC, Robin Collins -- Fellow, CSC, William Lane Craig -- Fellow, CSC, William A. Dembski -- Senior Fellow, CSC, Guillermo Gonzalez -- Senior Fellow, CSC, Cornelius Hunter -- Fellow, CSC, Robert Kaita -- Fellow, CSC, Robert C. Koons -- Fellow, CSC, Forrest M. Mims III -- Fellow, CSC, Scott Minnich -- Fellow, CSC, Paul Nelson -- Fellow, CSC, Jay Wesley Richards -- Fellow, CSC, Henry F. Schaefer -- Fellow, CSC, Jonathan Wells -- Senior Fellow, CSC. Sources: ISCID Fellows, Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture Fellows

This is notable in and of itself, but what is particularly notable is that these two groups share nearly all the leading lights of the design movement; Behe, Dembski, Wells, Gonzalez, Nelson, etc. This warrants mentioning and expanding on, and simply deleting it as someone has taken it upon himself to do is neither going to fly nor hide this important fact. FeloniousMonk 04:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's distinguish fellows of the Discovery Institute proper (the Senior and Adjunct Fellows listed here, none of whom are ISCID fellows) from those of the CSC, a program of the DI. It is not true, as this edit summary asserts, that most ISCID fellows are DI fellows—none are fellows of the DI proper, and as shown by Felonious Monk's helpful list, most are not fellows of the CSC.
The text now claims that "the most notable" ISCID fellows "also serve as fellows of the Discovery Institute". First, no ISCID fellows serve as fellows of the Discovery Institute proper, but only of the CSC. Second, which fellows are "the most notable" is ambiguous. Third, a reasonable interpretation of that phrase could include Alvin Plantinga and Frank Tipler, neither of whom is a CSC fellow. Tim Smith 17:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Strikes me as splitting hairs, a minor point, but I've reworded it anyway to account for your point. Fellows who belong to both ISCID and CSC are noted and grouped together, so it is 100% accurate as it stands now. FeloniousMonk 00:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulletin board?

Is a bulletin board posting really an acceptable source? Guettarda 04:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Dembski contradicts this:

David Chiu is a design theorist. As a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (see http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php) is a card-carrying member of the ID movement.[4] Guettarda 04:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
A highly partisan bulletin board at that. Chiu, Dembski and all the other leading ID proponents have been trying to portray themselves as advocating something other than ID ever since the Dover trial ruling found that ID is religious and not valid science; we need to be circumspect about their statements, and any that run counter to the majority viewpoint of what they do or ID is need a caveat and quote from the other side in order to avoid undue weight issues. FeloniousMonk 17:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy & WP:RS

This 'encyclopedia' appears to be being cited a number of times on wikipedia. Some are ID-specific references, and/or talkpages, etc, but a fair number are serious articles. Not only is it a piece of Creationist trash, but it seems that anybody can become an editor, making it effectively a wiki & thus not a WP:RS for that reason alone. Is there anything we should be doing to alert the unwary on this? HrafnTalkStalk 14:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely outrageous. I think we better look at those references carefully and replace them all if at all possible. There is no way this is a WP:RS--Filll 15:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed most of them that looked more glaringly bad. I'll try replace them with other refs later today. JoshuaZ 16:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth while to set up a rogues gallery of searches for links to known creationist pseudoscience sites (ISCID, AiG, ICR, etc) to allow regular checkups (with the checker simply replacing the last checker' signature with their own, next to the search-link, to show when it was last checked)? HrafnTalkStalk 16:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just been doing a bit of scratching around on sources with ties to Creationism and found that WorldNetDaily was cited 681 times. As far as I could tell, most of this was their more general wingnuttery, not Creationism-cruft specifically. But this is still an appalling large number of citations to such a notoriously unreliable source. AiG is also frequently cited -- but many/most of those are for articles related to YEC. HrafnTalkStalk 16:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Their suitable as a primary source only, not as a secondary source. It's actually handy to have it as a source for what they claim (a primary source). Odd nature 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


I often cite AiG and assorted creationist and religious publications like WorldNetDaily because I need sources that tell me what the creationists claim. I think they are reliable for that. However, I would not trust the Discovery Institute or CRS to give a useful definition of evolution or some biological concept. Likewise, I would be cautious about citing Physics Today on what some theological argument is; I would rather go straight to the theologians for this.--Filll 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)