User talk:Myles325a
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Supernatural
Hi, thanks. To be honest, though, I'm not quite sure what to do about the supernatural article. I posted tags and entered it into cleanup to attract the attention of people who might be more knowledgeable.
One of the big issues is, as I've said, what stance the article should take on the relationship between science and the supernatural. It used to take a strong pro-methodological naturalism stance in the lead paragraph, but then someone clipped that out. I've heard unanimously from non-Creationist, non-ID scientists that science cannot work with supernatural explanations. But my hearing is not an RS. Secular Web has several essays justifying MN in a variety of different ways. [1] (scroll down a bit). A similar essay is there at talk.design. [2]
But (1) even if we can find some essay, even a peer reviewed essay, saying that science should have MN, it does not follow that all reputable scientists believe in MN, and (2) if all reputable scientists believe in MN, it does not follow that this should force Wikipedia to take the same stance under Undue Weight in NPOV. According to a philosophy book I read, Platonism is extremely popular among mathematicians. This doesn't mean that WP should take a generally Platonist POV on philosophy of mathematics subjects, though. A lot of philosophers think Platonism is silly. So what discipline has the competence to tell Wikipedia if science needs MN? Scientists? Philosophers? Epistemologists? Philosophers of science?
That was my main concern for this article. And as I said, there are still a lot of unsourced statements. Your re-wording of the lead is good tentatively, I think, but in the long run I think we should try to put more meat on its bones. Cheers. Schmitty120 14:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Relativity of simultaneity
Only noticing because of an anom edit today, I'm inclined to think that you inadverently reversed the meaning of a paragraph at Relativity of simultaneity in this edit.
Do you agree or am I missing something?
Perhaps the paragraph should be rewritten for clarity, when it was so easy to get confused?
Pjacobi 19:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Twin paradox
Hi, I added comments to its Talk page. I'm afraid that your efforts to make the text smoother were based on the misleading presentation that resulted from the deletion of pertinent information that used to provide context, to the extent that the text now has become erroneous. Please have a look at the fuller information that still was present in te article of half a year ago and correct the text accordingly. Thanks in advance! Harald88 06:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Personal attacks on Talk:Arse
Please do not make personal attacks on Wikipedia as you did to Talk:Arse.[1] Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks which may result in blocking. Thank you. Reginmund 01:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of your stance on a subject, it is unethical on Wikipedia to post personal attacks. We always have means of solving problems and vulgar badinage only makes things worse. If you feel that an article needs improvment, you can clean it up your self and/or post it on the cleanup page. Thank you. Reginmund 02:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The talk page is not a forum
[edit] Does Intelligent Design necessarily mean Creationism?
For a long time I have thought there is a semantic problem with the whole notion of Intelligent Design, and that that problem is obscuring the issues. It is simply this. Every religion and all the denominations of the Christian faith would today endorse the central notion that the universe and all life in it - most especially human life - has a purpose, in the teleological sense. This belief is without regard to whether such organizations accept or reject the Darwinian theory of Biological Evolution. In actuality, it would be hard to imagine how any religion could maintain its belief in some fundamental nexus between humanity and the cosmos on a deep eschatological level. We could well hope that the Pope Benedict XVI would reaffirm the Church’s endorsement of evolutionary theory, and repudiation of Creationism. But it would surely be asking too much to expect him to endorse the notion that the whole of life came about SOLELY through a series of random events, and has no purpose, and no meaning. This would be more or less asking him to come out and declare for atheism. Or at the very least some kind of non-interventionist God such as Spinoza argues for, who does not answer prayers and has no connection with the fate of humankind.
The view of those liberal creeds and denominations which accept evolution is often vague and half-baked. Typically, they only have a misty notion of what they themselves believe and, in this way, they lag behind the fundamentalists who, however absurd their views, at least are consistent about them. But, in brief, the view of all non-fundamentalist denominations (about 90 per cent of the whole of professing Christendom) would concur that somehow a Divine Will works throughout history, both in recorded human history, and in the vast history of the advent and development of life. How God actually fits himself into the small gaps in the story of mutations is not often discussed, but the general liberal Christian notion of evolution is not neo-Darwinian. It is end-centred, it supposes that there is a trajectory in which life is “working out some vast cosmic plan”, and in short that biological evolution has, apart from natural selection, some other fundamental engine that drives it in a way analogous to the “working out of the World Spirit” in Hegelian dialectics.
This means that virtually ALL theological thought, not just the no-nothing nutters of the Creationist push, maintain that the central aspect of the notion of Intelligent Design is a valid one, indeed necessary if any kind of faith based on supernatural concepts is to remain. This article BEGINS with a very brief reference to the teleological aspect of most theological views on the history of life, but then immediately segues into a discussion of “Intelligent Design” as if it were a fully copyrighted logo of the Discovery Institute. Is this fair, or can one be a fully paid up neo-Darwinist (as I am) as well as a believer in supernatural and cosmic designs in nature and history (as I am also).
Where do we go from here. Well, how about the following. Myles325a 04:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What is necessary for a view on Evolution to be considered “scientific”?
In what way could a non-atheist be a “scientific” advocate of evolutionary ideas? My preliminary suggestion is as follows. I would expect that such a person to agree with the following.
1. Species today are descended from earlier species, with life starting from one (or at least a small number) of microscopic organisms of simple structure. Thus all life is related through kinship by descent.
2. Humans are directly related to the great apes, and we share with them a common ape-like ancestor.
3. Life began at least three billion years ago on this planet.
4. New species with new traits evolve through the process of selection pressure favouring or retarding those traits arising in organisms through mutation.'
Now, I present these points as basis for a discussion. If a person would assent to the four points delineated above, then would that be enough to allow that person to be considered scientifically respectable? Because if it does, then this allows for a goodly amount of room for material of a speculative and theological nature.
Let me be more specific. Had theoreticians demonstrated that the process of Natural Selection was both necessary and sufficient for the process of evolution to occur, then metaphysical and theological speculation on “end purposes” and “grand designs” would be left without oxygen, and be considerably diminished. But that is not the case. We know enough to say Natural Selection, as it understood today, is a NECESSARY component of evolution, but it can in no way be said that it has been demonstrated to be entirely SUFFICIENT for such processes to occur. Of course, this objection itself would be somewhat moot if there had been no problems with “natural selection” but there are, and scientific researchers should be more open about them.
1. Epigenetic Effects. Recently, there have been huge strides made in the mapping of various organisms’ genomes, most especially that of humans. Partially as a consequence of this, it has been discovered that epigenetic effects may affect traits amongst progeny. Briefly, this means that events in the lifetime of an organism MAY affect the chromosomological structure of progeny, even though the gonads of that organism were not affected (for example, by radiation). This has led to a revival of the older Lamarckian view of evolution, once thought comprehensively refuted for all time. Lamarck’s example was – famously - the giraffe. He held that it was the constant striving for the foliage just out of the giraffe’s reach, which gradually led to the development of the giraffe’s long neck. This view, in which lifestyle choices strengthen associated traits in succeeding generations, was one which many commentators found philosophically congenial. George Bernard Shaw’s preface to his play “Man and Superman” deals positively with Lemarckian, and Lysenko notoriously based agricultural policy in Communist Russia on it, to bad results. My thoughts are that if it is indeed possible to inherit acquired characteristics, then Nature would make great use of it. Direct phenome to genome transfer would be obviously an instrument of enormous power. Is it the case that Nature does avail itself of such power? It would mean that the process of biological evolution had in it an element in which the direct experience and choices of the organism could be felt genetically by its progeny. Such a formulation of evolution is more in line with views which see divine purpose in the evolution of life.
2. Cultural selection and sexual selection drive evolution Just about every lay introduction to natural selection will utilize as prime examples traits such as opposable thumbs and beak shapes. I would argue that sexual selection, and cultural selection (the latter hardly ever mentioned) are of crucial importance to evolution of the parameters of human personality, and over the last 100 thousand years have been of far greater importance than traits developed through interaction with purely physical forces such as heat, cold, and resistance to bacteriological elements. In sexual selection, the woman will typically prefer men with a good balance of strength and gentleness, being cognisant that she expects him to help rear their children. As a result, women characteristically are attracted to strength, but not to sadism, to affluence, but not to meanness, to a sense of humour, because a man with a sense of humour will be more likely to be charmed by the activities of their children, and so on. In a parallel strand, cultural values will have direct bearing on who is regarded as an asset to the community, and who not. In an oral society, a well-spoken man will receive preferential treatment when compared to one who is tongue-tied. A man who has “people-skills” and can handle and lead people will attain personal power that others will not. Traditionally, people who attain privileged positions have greater choices available to them, in terms of who they marry, in terms of provision for their children. In this way, such behavioural and personality traits can become fixed in a community through the simple functioning of selection pressure via sexual and cultural selection. Yet these mechanisms are given short shrift in the literature of evolution. In fact, the enhancement of what we all recognise as beneficial human traits through the seemingly blind movements of natural selection, provides us with a paradigm of how evolution may proceed in ways which “spiritual” tendencies of humans are fostered through biological mechanisms.
3. Other Problems with Natural Selection Absolutism
I will briefly describe some problems I have with what I call Natural Selection Absolutism. The first of these is the sheer number of traits that any individual member of particular species will have. In the case of the giraffe, for example, introductory texts will always point out that those progeny of giraffes which have longer necks will be favoured over those with shorter. But a look at a giraffe skeleton will reveal that the “long neck” is only one aspect of the giraffe’s unique anatomy. There is need for enormous bones on the back to support that neck, and then legs to support the back. Looking at the animal as a whole, one realises that EVERY component of the animal, EVERY bone in the entire body, right down to the ones in its toes, has been engineered to keep that neck up there. It is not a case of “longer necks are favoured”. A longer neck without the requisite support of strong bones for the back and enormous muscles to anchor it would actually be counter-productive. Now, mutations by definition take place in ONE part of ONE gene, but the developing morphology of a species will typically have dozens of somatic features, each dovetailing with the others to produce one superbly unified functional whole. But how is it that a whole constellation of genetic traits can arise through individual mutations in singular genes. And then, when we take into account all the other features of the giraffe, such as its prehensile tongue, its eyelashes, the horns, the markings – all of these are presumably traits which confer survival or reproduction advantage. But how can this work, how are traits fixed in the organism when there are presumably at any one time, dozens of them in competition for “most favoured trait”. What would happen if a beneficial trait is carried by an organism that has less than normal of other beneficial traits? The texts usually give the impression that selection pressure is applied with respect to ONE trait, but in reality, there must be hundreds of traits competing against each other.
Karl Popper had his misgivings when he accorded the Theory of Evolution status as "scientific empiricism". That biological evolution occurs as described in the initial four points, to me now seems indisputable. But I also believe that NOT ALL the mechanisms of how this happens are well-understood. Evolution is an incomplete theory, the way Quantum Physics and General Relativity are incomplete theories. There is some critical process occuring that has not been fully discerned. It does no scientist any credit to pretend that this is not the case. Myles325a 05:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] E-mail
As opposed to including your e-mail address on your user page, which can potentially wreak havoc on your e-mail account from spammers, considering enabling e-mail in your user preferences. This will allow users to e-mail you through Wikipedia, to the address of your choice, without actually knowing your e-mail address. Regards, Lara♥Love 14:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] new scientist
Saw your letter in New Scientist. Well done. Perhaps we can collaborate on some material here. I really like the way you think and write. 58.168.64.117 05:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Timeline_of_cosmology
Hey there, thought you might like to take a look at the comment I just posted at Talk:Timeline_of_cosmology#timeline_of_cosmological_theories. Cgingold 11:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] All About Sam
I find your comment on the talk page for All About Sam very uncalled for. Why not expand the article? What have we all suffered from? Kiwiboy121 15:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] November 2007
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Wrinkle. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. Jauerback 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. Thank you. Jauerback 22:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sharing the buzz
Hi Myles325a! Thanks for your friendly note. Happy to meet a fellow aussie too – total buzz Julia Rossi (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Russian saying
Hi Myles, howzitgoin, was this for me? Ah Solzhenitsyn ... The Circle was one I didn't read. But getting back, maybe it's so neat because it's a universal thing - especially when you overhear conversations say on the bus or in cafés it still seems to be what people are saying when maybe all they want is company. And company means coming to an economic agreement even if it's the economics of relationship. Say, why don't you make this a question on the refdesk? Gottalovit, Julia Rossi (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Haha, here's your racy one-liner: zoo-oom.................puff** * ~0==Ћ0:
Julia Rossi (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC) -- had to add a spoiler and a turbo. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXII - March 2008
The March 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election
An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hello there
Hi Myles, nice to hear from you! Wikipedia has an article The Night Land - is that the one? You might be interested in improving the article – it's only start class mid/importance as yet. Someone has already raised a question on the talk page[2] or you might like to get in touch with the Fantasy task force to see what's going. Always a buzz to see your name about too, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] the spelling of Fatimah
Tha Fatima of Portugal at 1917 refers to Fatimah; the daughter of Muhammed; for which the city and area was named; thus "Fatimah" is the name of the Daughter of Muhammed: if you have some doubt how that is spelled then take a look at the link. I don't really care that you called me a goose because YOU don't happen to know who I am talking about: the spelling of "Fatima" in Portugal is therefore not how I refer to the one I call Maryam al Kubra; the "greater Mary"; perhaps you can argue with Muhammed on the spelling of his own daughter's name when you have some spare time from correcting people who have made no mistake: make no mistake about that: I happen to know both WHO and WHAT I am talking about; perhaps being an old fuddy duddy has nothing to do with your rather strange way of exposing your complete ignorance to the world at large and myself in particular. Unicorn144 (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Science Reference Desk response
Hi Myles! I have responded at my talk page. I think you must have completely misunderstood what I was saying; I was not in any way even talking about whether animals can feel pain, let alone taking a stance about that issue. In fact if you re-read what I wrote, I discussed how limited it is to disregard things such as an animal's emotional state, situation, etc. Feel free to respond at my Talk page... Nimur (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've briefly responded again at my talk page. Nimur (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
