Talk:Russell's teapot/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dawkin's quote and relevance

Dawkin's quote does not expand the idea of the teapot or criticizes it, it just mentions the teapot in an attack on the religion.

When something is just mentioned, it belongs in "cultural references", I don't think the entire quote should be included.

Any reason for keeping it?TylerJ71 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You say that it doesn't expand on the idea of the teapot? It seems to me like it does expand on the idea of the teapot. I wouldn't object to putting it into a "cultural references" section excepting that many editors disagree on the purpose of the "cultural references" section.

The reasons for keeping it are many. The text is referenced, the text is a neutral description of the facts, and it is relevant. Any reason for removing it? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to delete the reference itself. I don't object to it being mentioned.

Alister McGrath mentioned the teapot too, should THAT entire quote be included?TylerJ71 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate to agree with TylerJ71, but I too think it is just more thinly veiled advocacy. It is quite non-neutral. The whole section seems to be simply trying to use the Teapot to argue against religion, not to expand a passionless discussion of the Teapot Argument. I think both sections (Criticism and "Contemporary Forms") should be deleted, leaving the lead section and the bottom detritus. Simple. Succinct. Straightforward. Passionless. No fights. The two sections seem to have become the two "territories" of two sides of a badly-acted religion "debate". Definitely not encyclopedic. I tried to fix part of it with the changes I made to the Criticism section about an hour ago, but that's only half the job. The "Contemporary Forms" section needs a similar treatment or they both should be simply deleted.

--Gummer85 (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring

This is a notification that any further edit-warring on this article will result in the page being protected from editing and those responsible blocked from contributing. Please use the above discussion sections to reconcile the dispute without disruption, or if you feel that is unlikely, pursue dispute resolution.  Skomorokh  13:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As the edit-war has continued, I have protected the page from editing for a week. Please engage in discussion.  Skomorokh  14:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed by this. I thought that a consensus was close, and that is why I twice reverted one editor's attempt to change it back to a previous strongly POV version. Is there not agreement above that both the contemporary forms and the criticism sections would be better as summaries of a range of views and arguments, rather than as a platform for "thinly veiled advocacy"? Were we not getting somewhere? TylerJ71 seems to have a problem with the details of the criticism section, feeling that it does not clearly enough express some of the points, but surely in that case he/she should amend the text in question, not simply revert to the thinly-veiled-advocacy version. And let's have some suggestions on how to rewrite the contemporary forms section. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Critique of the criticism section

Some comments:

• The Criticism section appears to be misattributed to a certain shadowy group of unnamed critics, whereas in fact there is only one reference. Does the reference actually support the statement that this is the opinion of "some critics"? Or is the article citing just one critic as an example of "some critics"? The latter case, which seems the more likely candidate, is unacceptible: the article should specifically attribute this criticism to its source. In that case, there are likely WP:WEIGHT issues, since the source in question does not seem to be an especially reknowned critic.
• The word "skeptically" is used in a rather question-begging manner, as no one really treats the concept with credulity to begin with. In effect, the teapot is itself a skeptical attempt at reductio ad absurdum.
• The meaning of the two critiques also seem to fall flat. The first seems to be saying that the presence of an orbiting teapot can, in principle, be verified by scientific methods other than those available to Russel in his day. How this renders Russell's teapot an "incomprehensible fallacy" is somewhat of a mystery to me. I don't even understand the second critique. Surely Russell's teapot precisely undercuts the element of superstition in the belief in any omnipotent supernatural entity. That "some people" are offended when belief in God is likened to any other superstitious belief is an appeal to emotion.

Much of the problem with the criticism section can be resolved by finding better sources and, perhaps on the talk page, giving direct quotes supportive of the statements made in the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism section should not be left the way it is now.

Although the critic may not be renowned, the source is reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undue_weight_(sources)#Reliability_can_help_judge_due_weight

The reliability of a source can help you judge the weight to give the opinions of that source. The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion. For sources of very low reliability, due weight may be no mention at all.TylerJ71 (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. A source can completely reliably represent the opinions of its author without being an authoritative source on the matter of critics in the broader sense, and thus can fail to pass WP:WEIGHT. I have looked at the google preview of this book, and it really does seem to be just this one junior professor's opinion. Surely better sources can be found. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can find better sources, the point is moot. The book only fails to pass WP:WEIGHT if other critics contradict it. Otherwise, wikipedia guidelines state that reliable sources should be given weight.TylerJ71 (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not so. The book fails to pass WP:WEIGHT because its author is not prominent in comparison to the others mentioned (Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins). Rather than citing essays, consider reading the policy itself: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" (emphasis mine). Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source"

that the analogy is not valid is definitely a significant viewpoint

Wikipedia policy never states that reliable sources which present a significant viewpoint should be left out.

Eric Reitan has published other books as well, hardly just a "Junior professor".TylerJ71 (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to his own CV, Reitan is an "Associate Professor", hence, junior, not full professor. Additionally, I see no other books in his own CV. Chapters and the like, but no other books. [1]. Edhubbard (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[2] The University website says he's not an associate professor.

there are other books of which reitan is an author or co-author

[3] [4]

and of course, there are chapters that he wrote, dozens of articles in journals, etc.

Not a self published author whose reliable sources should be excluded from relevant articles.TylerJ71 (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I, too, have marveled at the particular criticism that is "science-based". To repeat: "In one counter argument, a modern perspective holds that a teapot in orbit is verifiable by means other than telescopes. As the Teapot is now conceptually verifiable, the whole Russell's Teapot argument is rendered an incomprehensible fallacy." As an avid astronomy lover, I smile when I read this. Perhaps one must study NEOs and PHOs to realize that it just ain't so easy to spot/track a teapot-sized object in some ill-defined orbit between Earth and planet Mars. Astronomers are still willing to admit to the fact that there are objects out there quite a bit bigger than teapots that have yet to be spotted. So the science-based criticism is quite a giggle. I think perhaps that the very best criticism of the teapot of Russell is the fact that, under the pressure of outer space, china would never be able to hold up very long. <g>
  

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• PS. And under the significant pressure of logic and reason, neither would religion.

Why does the page state that people reject the argument as "incomprehensible fallacy"? It is hard not to get angry at this sort of thing. It has been discussed over and over here that the analogy states that the teapot can not be verified. That is the basis of the whole argument, so to state that some people reject the argument regarding verifiability is false, since they are really rejecting an argument that no-one was making! People who advance their opinions must discipline themselves and read the wording of the analogy. He stated that one must be careful so as to add that the teapot is so small that it cannot be verified by the largest telescopes. Before going down a road of stating that it is possible that the teapot is so small that it can not be seen even with an electron microscope (a distracting avenue but one that can still be argued easily) the wording of the analogy specifically states that the hypothetical involves a situation where something can not be verified. To now say that we have powerful tools to verify the existence of the teapot is trying to change the hypothetical variables to something else. Could this article be about Russell's analogy, and not analogies that involve variables that Russell did not state? It is understandable that people will not be happy with the article purely reflecting the facts about the analogy, but putting in a section that misrepresents it is not what wikipedia is about. Ninahexan (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Points well taken, Ninahexan. It must be remembered that encyclopedias are not about truth and "facts"; they are about "verifiability". It makes no difference whether we agree or disagree with what's in the article, or whether or not we like or hate or love or feel complacent about what's in the article. What matters is verifiability of the claims made in the article. And that's what an encyclopedia is about.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the interesting points about recent mentions of the teapot are (1) that they all seem to crop up in books that are written in answer to Dawkins, and (2) that they seem to see the teapot as an easy means of ridiculing the atheist argument (because they focus on the teapot as a physical and therefore verifiable object, thereby missing the whole point - as Ninahexan has pointed out above). Perhaps these two points could provide a structure for a criticism section: (1) in what contexts the teapot gets mentioned; (2) what aspect of the teapot is commented on. To make the first of these explicit would certainly deal with a problem I otherwise have, which is that quoting the likes of McGrath and Reitan takes us further and further from the teapot (the subject of this article) and ever closer to the Dawkins-bashing that so many authors (and Wikipedia editors?!) seem to indulge in. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly true that it is appropriate to only include information here that is referenced properly so it can be verified. The other task is to use judgement about what is relevant to include. We can verify logically whether someone's criticism of the analogy rests on theoretical bases or on a misinterpretation of the analogy. Clearly much of the criticisms are based on a misinterpretation (by accident or otherwise) of the analogy. The criticism section should reflect that these points of contention rely on a misunderstanding of the variables of the analogy, as I believe Snalwibma suggests. Doing so would add a lot to the article, because it seems many people are introduced to the analogy in this misinterpreted form, and so this section would help them better understand the nuances of the real analogy. Ninahexan (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The teapot, since it is a physical object, is, on that basis alone, verifiable by principle. Saying that the teapot is verifiable is not a mis-interpretation. Russell never mentions verifiability, just that it cannot be disproved. Proving a positive and proving a negative are too very different things.

Just because you view the criticism as logically flawed because you maintain that they are mis-interpretations doesn't make them so, and certainly doesn't make it fact which should be reflected in wikipedia articles.

nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

able to disprove, not able to proveTylerJ71 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and you are suggesting that you can disprove it? How would you do that? If your telescopes did not detect the teapot, then you have not disproved the existence of it. The only way you can disprove the assertion is if it actually was there, and was detected, right? What if it was not actually there at all? Then the assertion could never be disproved. Now do you understand what Russell was saying? I think people have overlooked that Russell did not say that there was a teapot, but rather that there might be an ASSERTION that there was, in which case it could only be disproved if there was a way of detecting it, but only if it actually existed of course. The claim that anything that is a physical object can be verified shows that you do not understand the actual wording of the analogy, since in that hypothetical the variables prevented the verification of the object. This is exactly the reason Russell inserted the conditions of being unable to disprove the existence of the teapot. He already covered the bases that you are talking about.Ninahexan (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have found an online copy of the reference in question, and at no point in the entire book does he use the phrase incomprehensible fallacy, nor does he come close to using the notion. The closest he comes to supporting what this criticism section says is that since a teapot is a physical object it can in principle be verified. That is of course if such a teapot existed, unless of course Russell had specifically stated that it could not be detected/verified. Which is what he did.

On a related note, the article states that it would be possible to observe a teapot without a telescope. What instrument is being referred to here? Ninahexan (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Come now... Please let's not get bogged down in discussions about whether we personally find Russell's argument convincing, or are persuaded by the arguments of his critics. Let's focus on how to improve the article, which must be limited strictly to what has been said about the teapot in notable and reliable sources. I propose a structure that goes "Russell said X; Dawkins picked it up and said Y; some critics have commented on Russell, and on Dawkins' use of the analogy, saying Z." To go further, and criticise any of these three parties ourselves, is not allowed in a Wikipedia article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair enough policy. The reference for this section does not mention using other tools than telescopes to detect the teapot, so that should not be in this section. The section is worded poorly, anyway, and would benefit by rewriting it to be both a more accurate reflection of the sources, as well as give the context for the sources. And removal of "incomprehensible fallacy" is important since the phrase is a contradiction in terms. Ninahexan137.111.43.123 (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to bog the page down with Dawkin's qoute, since Dawkin's argument is, "religion deserves hostility, unlikes Russell's teapot". To keep the article neutral, there would have to be dissenting viewpoints, otherwise, the page would be quoting an entire paragraph of one side's arguments.TylerJ71 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the Dawkins book in front of me, but is this quote actually representative of his use of the teapot? Surely he also summarizes Russell's argument (and presumably gives his own take on it). The paragraph presented here makes the teapot out to be just a red herring. I do think that Dawkins use of it adds notability to the article, and cannot be omitted. However, I think the article should try to summarize him accurately rather than to give a possibly cherry-picked direct quote that only conveys one aspect of things. (Again, I don't have the book with me, so I can't say if this is the extent of Dawkins's reference to the teapot, but the quotes given below suggest strongly otherwise.) Another overall remark on the article: the current structure makes a neutral presentation very difficult. Having a separate "Criticism" section seems unjustifiably polarizing. Particularly for such short sections, it makes sense to merge "Contemporary forms" and "Criticism". Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the section for the time being. The section should at least represent arguments accurately.TylerJ71 (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that editors are continually making changes to Reitan's argument into something that he has not said.

Reitan never said, "a god", he referred to 'God'.

Reitan made the argument that given what we know about the world, there is at least some reason to think Russel's teapot is false and no reason to think them true, yet that is continously being deleted.

Furthermore, Reitan's argument is not a "contemporary form", neither is Dawkin's reference to it. This gives the misleading picture that the argument has somehow changed into something else.TylerJ71 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Reitan said that physical objects are verifiable in principle, so why did you remove these words? They were his own words. TylerJ71, your disappointment about things being changed to something he did not say is ironic. I also don't agree with the capitalisation of god, since on this page we are putting forth sources that deal with the concept of the analogy and how it relates to deities, not one specific monotheistic deity. To be specific this part should either be uncapitalised, used as a quote or it should be noted which particular faith the author of the reference adheres to so that the readers of the page will understand which god is being referenced. If Reitan's comments do not generalise to other deities then it should definitely be stated. Ninahexan (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I put back the "in principle" thing because that is exactly what he said- "While they might not be falsifiable in a strong sense, they are in principle verifiable- and can thus be falisfied in the weak sense discussed in chapter 2." If anyone has a valid reason for removing this again please comment. I am leaving the "a god" thing for now, but only because I think there should be agreement before useless edit wars start. Reitan used the phrase "a God" a lot in his book, which suggests he gets proper nouns mixed up with common nouns. Should we adhere to such a mistake?Ninahexan (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I do think criticism should have its own section, especially since the article is about a controversial argument.TylerJ71 (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, criticism sections should be avoided unless there are clear reasons for having one. Being a "controversial argument" is not enough. It is often better to present both pro and con views alongside one another. Otherwise, as I indicated above, the article structure can become very polarizing. Indeed, even Peter Atkins acknowledges that the argument has limitations. Does that make him a "critic" of the argument? Certainly not, and presenting it in a "criticism" section would be totally inappropriate. Conversely, James Wood acknowledges certain good points and bad points of the argument, thus also fails to fit himself neatly into either of the "pro" or "con" cubbyholes. Having an article structure that firmly divides people into two camps is inappropriate, and arguably unsupported by sources. Moreover, reasonable people reading the article would probably also find some middle ground of their own, and should not be forced into an opinion based on a misguided sense of a battle between "us" and "them". Thus I think the spirit of WP:NPOV is much better served without a dedicated section on criticisms. Finally, so far no one has yet found more than a few sentences worth of criticism out there in the literature, which is very little to build a full section on. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Although Peter Akins acknowledges limitations and James Wood acknowledges good points, it doesn't change the fact that there are those who criticize the argument. One can acknowledge good points of an argument while some criticizing it.

It is definitely not in the spirit of WP:NPOV to give a controversial argument in the lead and not even have one section dedicated to criticism of it when several reliable sources exist.

Finally, if pro and con sides are going to be presented along side each other, then either criticism should be removed from the lead or the quote should be removed. To adress the point of not having enough literature on criticism, remember that the original argument itself appeared in an unpublished article.TylerJ71 (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that "contemporary usage" is a quite appropriate phrase to use for the section, since it goes towards explaining that many supposed criticisms of the analogy are actually criticisms of how the analogy is used/represented. As such it is appropriate to refer to usage rather than criticism of the actual analogy, since it adds the dimension of context to the section. Ninahexan (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact that it is not in the spirit of WP:NPOV to include one side of an argument, and not have even one section on the other, especially when there are multiple reliable sources. The criticism is directed at Russell's analogy itself, it is not criticism of Dawkin's usage.TylerJ71 (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an argument, it is an analogy that Russell used to outline the concept of burden of proof. Here is an elaborated explanation of why Russell's analogy is not answered by Reitan:

If there was no teapot then failure to detect it does not mean that it has been disproven. This is an obvious concept that no longer needs explaining I hope. If there was a teapot, then failure to detect it again would not mean that it was disproven. If there was a teapot, and it was detected then that would PROVE its existence! So, comments stating that modern technology would allow us to verify the teapot completely miss the point, whoever put that in.

Now going on to comment on Reitan's further reasoning- he stated that given what we know of the physical world (partly through science) there is no reason to think that santa, orbiting teapots and pixies exist, and some reason to doubt them. Russell stated "If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"

Reitan has been mentioned, though the quality of his work is not worthy of further space on this page.Ninahexan (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The analogy does compare belief in God to belief in a teapot, do you not agree? Criticizing it is criticism of the teapot.

If you say that this is not what he argues, then there would be no connection to God in his analogy, which is incorrect.TylerJ71 (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think you are misunderstanding here. The point Reitan made is that there is no reason to believe in the teapot/pixies/santa etc, but there is some reason not to, while there is reason to believe in a god. What Russell actually said is that as it would stand, there would NOT be a reason to believe in the teapot ("I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense". This is what Reitan is argueing, and it was already stated by Russell! What Reitan fails to mention, is that Russell went on to suggest that if the teapot was surrounded by a mythos in the same way that gods are, then "hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time".

Is there something here that is missing? Do you see that the points Reitan were trying to make were already addressed by Russell? The analogy is about burden of proof, and how that concept relates to a belief in a god or the belief in pretty much anything else for that matter (it could be used to relate to a belief in historical records, for example). Ninahexan (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You ignored my point.

Do you deny that Russell is comparing belief in a teapot to belief in God?

Reitan, and others, criticized that comparison.TylerJ71 (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, next time read what I wrote. I will copy and paste so you can read it- "The analogy is about burden of proof, and how that concept relates to a belief in a god or the belief in pretty much anything else for that matter (it could be used to relate to a belief in historical records, for example)" Russell was exactly commenting that the two are different, hence he would be "rightly be thought to be talking nonsense" as the answer to the comparison. But, he then goes on to suggest that if a mythos surrounded the teapot in the same way they surround a god then "hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity...". So he states the difference between a belief in a god, and a belief in a teapot, then goes on to say that if the context was the same, the effect would be the same. I already answered your question, I'm sorry if you don't understand it.Ninahexan (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response.

Analogies can comment on how two concepts are different, but it essentially says that those two things are the same. The analogy points out that the beliefs are similar because, as you yourself have said, "if the context was the same, the effect would be the same".TylerJ71 (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The citation from Reitan makes judgements about variables that go beyond the constraints of Russell's analogy, and accordingly it is misleading to include it on this page. The analogy states that the teapot's existence can not be verified. Reitan states that because a teapot is physical it can be verified in principle. This contradicts what Russell said were the conditions of the analogy. A principle characteristic of the teapot in his analogy is that it can not be verified. It is obvious to me that Reitan's work does not actually address Russell's analogy, but merely attempts to change its parameters in order to try to find a fault with it. Considering the amount of agreement we seem to have in this area I think it is time to remove this pointless and misleading citation. To leave it in gives the impression that it somehow does address the analogy, which it doesn't. If Russell had not stated that the teapot was not verifiable then Reitan would have a point, and his citation would be valid here. Given Russell's disclaimer that the teapot can not be verified makes the fact that a teapot is physical wholly immaterial (chuckle). Hopefully we can come to a resolution in a few days, at which point I will either leave it in or remove it based on the consensus of other editors. 137.111.47.29 (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Oops, signed out accidentally. Ninahexan (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that Reitan (and others) completely miss the point, and cannot see past their own prejudices to grasp what Russell is actually saying. However, it is relevant in that it mentions Russell's teapot, and it is perhaps useful in that it shows how the teapot idea continues to worry theists to the point that they still feel the urge to write "refutations". I would like to see Reitan and others included, but in a way that shows the continued relevance of the teapot idea without appearing to endorse their comments - if that can be achieved without resorting to original research. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, I just find it difficult that no-one is allowed to state that this reference ignores a central aspect of the analogy. It seems to me that the fact that the citation distorts the analogy grounds enough to not include it, but if someone can work out a way of expressing this fact without original research then the combination of the two would actually add to the context of opposition to the analogy. The status quo allows a misrepresentation to go unaddressed. Ninahexan (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Russell's analogy comparing God to a teapot is also a misrepresentation. The fact is, Russell never said the teapot can't ever be seen, just that it's too small. Not being able to verify is not unverifiable.

Furthermore, there are other issues.

The quote should not be in the lead.

This sentence:

"since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being." also violates NPOV

Seeing that this article is controversial, and that judging by the comments, most editors are biased, even sometimes stating whether Russell is right or wrong, I recommend that an administrator check the article for its neutrality.TylerJ71 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He said the teapot was too small to be revealed... What doesn't make sense about this? This discussion is about the Reitan citation, and whether it adds any relevant information about Russell's analogy. Since it misrepresents the analogy in order to find a flaw it doesn't seem like an appropriate source of information. The suggestion that editors here are biased doesn't make your points more valid. We are trying to work out what information illuminates the subject, and if you were looking at it objectively you would see that Reitan doesn't add anything in this arena. And if you are accusing editors here of bias, you should realise the irony of your actions when you tried to recruit people to support your desire to cram criticism sections onto the page against the consensus of the majority of other editors.Ninahexan (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You completely ignored the other NPOV issues I raised.

You also ignored Reitan's other argument, that given what we know about the world, there is reason to think the teapot does not exist and no reason to think it does.

You also say that objectively, Reitan doesn't add anything.

You also ignored what I said: " Not being able to verify is not unverifiable."

I am trying to bring the content dispute to a conclusion, the only way I see that happening is through an administrator commenting on what wikipedia policy dedicates.TylerJ71 (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly- http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unverifiable Secondly Reitan- given what we know about the world there is reason to think it does not exist? What reasons? This isn't even the point. The point is that if someone misrepresents the analogy then that should either be explicitly stated, or it should not be included. Thirdly- science by definition involves verification, and if god can not be verified, and the teapot can not be verified then of course it is logical to say that the existence of both has the same SCIENTIFIC plausibility. Fourthly- the editors here seem to have the objective of including information that is well sourced and relevant. That is the bias. If something is not relevant I am biased against it, and it seems to me that someone suggesting that the analogy is flawed by misrepresenting the analogy is akin to a straw-man argument. I find it intellectually dishonest. I am suggesting that Reitan is guilty of this, not you. I think you just don't see why Reitan's citation fails to bring anything of value to the page.Ninahexan (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, TylerJ71 - You are right about one thing, and that is that the article would look better with the Russell quote removed from the lead. I have accordingly done that. But I just cannot see the argument (which you have repeatedly made) that what Russell himself said is "a misrepresentation" and therefore requires to be "balanced". What Russell said is simply the raw data for the article. Without Russell's words there would be no article. So we start from the position that the only thing that the article must do is provide the Russell quote. Then we add other material that helps the reader understand that and see it in context. The question is whether Reitan (for example) fulfils those criteria. I agree with Ninahexan that Reitan either misunderstands what Russell said or is making a straw-man argument. But I think Reitan should be included - as long as what he said is not presented as a "refutation" of Russell, offered to the world with the approval of Wikipedia. What we really need is some reliable external source that comments on the way the teapot has been used and misused by commentators since it was first proposed! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the present version has it about right. It presents Reitan's argument neutrally and briefly, without agreeing or disagreeing with it. Tyler - can you tell us precisely what (if anything) is wrong with the present summary of what Reitan says? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - one more thing... Tyler objects above that the phrase "since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being" also violates NPOV. No it doesn't. It is a summary of what Dawkins said, not a statement by Wikipedia. If anyone feels that it is not clear enough that this is the case, by all means edit the sentence to make it so - e.g. by inserting an "acccording to Dawkins" or some such! For my part, I think it perfectly clear as it is. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The present thread has absolutely diverged from the original topic (indeed, there is no longer a "criticism" section). However, I would like to add that under the present circumstances the Russell quote looks very good removed from the lead. The resulting section should probably include more context concerning Russell's own religious beliefs a propos of atheism, the essay "Why I am not a Christian" perhaps being the most famous. 72.95.242.63 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of such seems less apropos to this page, and more to the page about Russell himself. I'm not sure there is much need for "context" for the analogy, since I would think that the analogy and similar trajectories of thought are the context within which Russell formed his views of gods. To suggest that the analogy arose from the context of atheism is putting the cart before the horse. Ninahexan (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

More third party sources

Since I have been asked to do so above, in a dispute over how much WP:WEIGHT to impute to a publication by a junior professor at Oklahoma State University, I have found more third-party sources that can be incorporated into the article. This is a list in progress. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Atkins, Peter, "Atheism and science", The Oxford handbook of religion and science, pp. 129–130, [T]he core point is why a scientist should be asked to provide the disproof of the assertion. An Occam-like view is that a more primitive assertion (that is, the absense of a positive assertion) should take precedence over one that is less primitive. That is, the atheist's primitive world-view (not needing to assert the existence of a God) should be the starting-point for any argument, and if a theist wishes to bring about a change of mind, then it is up to him or her to supply the evidence. A scientist should not be required to prove a negative: a religious person should be required to prove a positive.
  
  The religious will not accept this argument, of course... because they hold the view... that their evidence is revelation..., and that the certain evidence they have cannot be conveyed at second hand and must be experienced directly and personally. A scientist, even one who is not an atheist, should view such a statement with the greatest suspicion, for it is well known how prejudice, social pressure, and general cultural conditioning can influence a person's judgement. An atheist will be adamant that evidence must be shareable if it is to be acceptable, and will not accept intuition as significant. {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

the teapot is mentioned in David Aikman's book as well:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zn6XkS-4BJcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Delusion+of+Disbelief&lr=#v=onepage&q=&f=false

And also Alister McGrath's.TylerJ71 (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to extract anything usefully encyclopedic from Aikman. The very idea of the argument to him seems too absurd to give any meaningful counterargument. Rather it is used as a kind of red herring for a rant against Dawkins. However, I did find in the bibliography of Aikman's book the following item from The New Republic:

Wood, James (18 December 2006), "The Celestial Teapot", The New Republic (27), It seems to occur neither to him nor to Russell that belief in God is not like belief in a teapot. The referent—the content of the belief—matters here. God may be just as undisprovable as the teapot, but belief in God is a good deal more reasonable than belief in the teapot, precisely because God cannot be reified, cannot be turned into a mere thing, and thus entices our approximations.

--Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is another good one:

Artigas, Mariano; Giberson, Karl (2006), Oracles of science: celebrity scientists versus God and religion, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195310726, [Dawkins] goes on to suggest that, if there actually are reasons for finding a supreme being more plausible than a celestial teapot, "if legitimate, they are proper scientific arguments which should be evaluated on their merits." We wonder, however, why only scientific arguments would be valid in favor of the existence of God—a subject that, Dawkins insists, remains outside the scope of science.

--Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

In reference to this edit, contrary to the edit summary, I see no support here for having a separate "criticism" section besides from a single lobbyist. I have reverted the edit because it seems to be inconsistent with the WP:STRUCTURE policy which, while written in a way as not to prohibit such sections completely, does strongly discourage them. If there is support for this, please make it known here. 71.253.12.110 (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

such sections are typical on articles on topics which are even remotely controversial

see:

Federal_Reserve_System Efficient market hypothesis —Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerJ71 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What happens elsewhere in Wikipedia is utterly irrelevant (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Not only is your proposed edit against Wikipedia policy, but it has zero WP:CONSENSUS, and at least three editors actively oppose it. You made a WP:BOLD edit, but you were reverted. The onus is on you to discuss and build consensus. 71.182.249.158 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What about this merits an article?

Note that I am not passing judgements on this particular metaphor for unfalsifiable theories, only questioning whether it merits an individual article. If it was an intricate metaphor that required a great deal of space to explain, that would be an argument for giving it its own article ... but it isn't. If it was a metaphor that had featured strongly in philosophical debates and been subject to multiple interpretations and perspectives, that would be an argument for giving it its own article ... but that's not the case, either. Dawkins is not adding anything to Russell's concept except more variations on the theme of "believers persecute non-believers". Contrast this with the article on watchmaker analogy which shows how numerous thinkers (including Dawkins) have all approached the same or a similar analogy but from multiple perspectives. I think this subject would probably be better merged somewhere appropriate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the concept does merit an article, something which I feel is borne out by a number of links to the article, though not a vast number admittedly. Also I think the Dawkins quote does add something. It reinforces the (absurd) notion of teapot-worship as a religion, and it also has some amusement value. Laurence Boyce 13:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's just the point. There are a number of links to the article, but almost without exception they are in "See also" or "Trivia" sections. It suggests to me that that's actually the only way anyone's ever going to find the article, and then when they find it they're not going to say "I now understand the concept in a way I didn't before" but "It's just like the Invisible Pink Unicorn, except substitute a teapot in space for a unicorn that is both invisible and pink." -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the teapot preceded both the IPU and FSM, so you could argue that it's the original true faith. Also Russell confers a certain historical importance. But please start a VfD if you wish. Laurence Boyce 16:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see a merge somewhere appropriate than outright deletion. It's not that I don't think it's worthy of coverage, it's that I think having too many articles covering different iterations of the same basic idea starts to weaken NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

After coming across this teapot somewhere on the internet and wanting to find out more about it, this reader, who is not a regular en-WP contributor, found the article by typing "teapot russell" (note the quotation marks) into a well known search engine. In my opinion a separate article makes WP useful. I cannot see how "having too many articles covering different iterations of the same basic idea" will "weaken NPOV". 213.100.59.197 01:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess one possibility is to leave each individual iteration of the same concept with its own history and details, where it has been quoted or is prevalent, and so on, and maybe have a parent article of the general concept and its history that links them all together (which might even already exist). --86.128.255.115 13:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It is a vivid, concrete, and easily grasped example of a specific logical argument; that the burden of proof lies on the side of proof of existence, rather than the proof of non-existence. So it is equally applicable to the scientific process (N-rays, Loch Ness monster, yeti, MMR combined vaccine as a cause of autism) as it is to philosophy or theology. It applies to the existence of 'heretical' entities (a being more powerful than the God of the Book, fairies, ghosts, voodoo loa, etc) as well as to Christian schemas; it is just posed as (Western, Christian) God vs teapot because that was the only context that Russell's audience held to be worth consideration. Also, the Turin Shroud gets a much longer article; if a forgery/artifact specific to one sect deserves that much consideration a basic universal logical argument like Russell's Teapot deserves one too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irateidiot (talk • contribs) 00:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

There exists a cartoon by the same name, named after this idea. I added this information before in the article, but it was reverted (by a now-banned user). Should this not be included here, or on a disambiguation page? [5] Kaell (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It only needs to be disambiguated if it has an article on Wikipedia (I'm not seeing one). And even in that case, it would simply need a hatnote at the top of this article ({{tl:otheruses}}). As far as mentioning it in the body of this article, that's a little more up for grabs, but generally considered to be related to the Notability of the cartoon. If you can find an in-depth, published review of the comic/site, a mention of the comic would probably be appropriate. -Verdatum (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Need to make it clear that this is a logical argument with universal applicability, and make it more readable

I think that the article as it stands (2010_04_08) doesn't make the jist of Russell's argument accessible. A plain-English interpretation is needed, and - because this article upsets religious believers - a set of examples that shows it is universally applicable.

Russell's argument is that the burden of proof is on the proof of existence side of an argument, rather than the disproof side; but some of the counter-arguments attack the lack of belief in the Teapot rather than the argument itself. The counter-counter argument is that the number of believers in a postulate doesn't affect the reality of the postulate. E.g. climate change is either happening or not, irrespective of the balance or magnitude of numbers of sceptics/accepters: the main cause of any climate change is either human activity or not, irrespective of the balance or magnitude of numbers of sceptics/accepters. Flying Saucers either exist or not, as do fairies, phlogiston, witches, microscopic germs, electrons, N-rays, and the Higgs particle. In these cases climate change, human-driven climate change, fairies, phlogiston, witches, germs, electrons, N-rays, the Higgs particle, are the Teapot; belief in them changes over time, but they either exist or not. (unless belief directly affects existence, but then a god would be human-powered and human-dependent, which is not the kind of argument that most critics of Russell's Teapot find attractive (or even consider)).

Also, the article doesn't make it clear - in simple terms - that the argument applies to any existence, not just God's. The list of Teapot-equivalents above does make it clear, for both concrete and metaphysical existences.

Making such a list seems unwieldy and inelegant, but the wiki is there for the common human, and most of those aren't comfortable with philosophical arguments, let alone formal philosophical/logical writing styles. So most of the wiki's audience have a significant risk of not being served by just having a terse exposition.

Irateidiot (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Occams Razor

The reference to occams razor should be taken out because that particular philosophy would indicate the opposite of what the article claims as the more simple explanation is that there is a God, with theories like string theory and M theory being FAR more complicated.

Porojukaha (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)But then, the way russels tea pot is generally used is illogical of itself. They are right in saying that science is never called upon to prove a negative and that proof lies with the theists. However, to ascribe to "atheism" is to join a religion. They believe, not having proof, that there is no God. Not having proof makes their belief a religious belief, not a scientific theory. The only defensible position is that of one who does not take sides, an agnostic.

Porojukaha (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Porojukaha – Occam's razor is mentioned in the article because a commentator on Russell's teapot mentioned it. It is not there because some random Wikipedia editor thinks it's appropriate. The rest of what you say is not really relevant to this talk page, which is for discussion of how to improve the article on Russell's teapot, not for you to express your opinions about life, the universe, etc. See WP:TALK for guidelines on what is and is not appropriate for a talk page. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Russell's teapot and logical fallacies

I'm sure that some people will not agree with the text I have added regarding Russell's teapot in its common usage as a type of straw man and\or argument from ignorance fallacy. I'm hoping that people will view these changes in a logical way and seek to improve them rather than simply attacking! The reasoning behind my change is the common usage, whereby an argument is sidestepped. Please bear in mind that this usage is common to very many debates covering a very wide range of subjects!

For example:

Tom: "I think that X is true"

Mot: "(Equates the likelihood and provability of the existence\truth of X to that of a teapot somewhere far out in space)"

'Mot' says this because X has no proof (that he accepts) and he wishes to ridicule it, therefore he invents something which he knows is highly improbable and faintly ridiculous, such as the teapot. The idea is to shift the focus from the unprovable idea being debated to an object which the user believes is most easy to disprove. The question of the teapot's existence, however, is entirely unrelated to the question of X, Mot has simply raised it as a straw man. Mot's position is also that of an argument from ignorance in that he implies (sometimes it is fairly explicit) that because X is currently unprovable it cannot exist\be the truth.

Ion Zone (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not I or anyone else agrees with the text you have added is irrelevant. If it is to remain in the article, however, it needs sources. Wikipedia is not a place for you to post your own thoughts and analysis. It is a WP:tertiary source. References, please, or I move to delete the addition of your personal speculation! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

A straw man is defined in the article as a "misrepresentation" of an argument - to state this about R's T. is a really sweeping statement. This is unconnected with whether you believe in God or not (I do, as it happens). To accuse Russell, a very eminent philosopher, of misrepresentation really needs a source, its not the kind of statement that we can make off our own bat. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

All coverage I've ever seen of the teapot has it as illustrating that to believe any claim in the absence of positive evidence is special pleading. Take any example other than the proponent's exceptional-for-some-reason X, and no reasonable person would buy into it. If anything, the teapot's mundane familiar nature nullifies accusations that santa/leprechaun comparisons are strawmen to ridicule (a listener/reader may get distracted thinking of known fantasy constructs as exemplars of absurdity, rather than claims that have no grounds in reality).Vhati (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be true that some people may interpret Russel's Teapot as a Straw Man argument, it actually isn't. It isn't declaring that "God" doesn't exist because the Teapot doesn't exist it's illustrating that all claims need rigorous substantiation. Belief in God lacks a falsifiable hypothesis (that can be tested), so it is not science. That statement is not a logical fallacy, which is what Russel's Teapot seeks to illustrate via an Argument By Uninformed Opinion toward those with Uninformed opinions. And in this much you are correct, if taken as an argument it is a fallacious one on the face of it, though if you care to think about about it you'd realize the absurdity of the argument is rather the point of it. Russel's Teapot isn't an argument to suggest, via reduction etc, that God doesn't exist but rather that the arguments suggesting the existence of God are as fallacious as any random assertion that as part of it's tenants is unverifiable. Grimsooth (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

---

So essentially it is a straw doll in the common usage, but not in its original use as a point about teaching propositions as established fact?

Ion Zone (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Ion Zone, you either have failed to understand what a Straw man argument actually is or you've failed to understand the Russel's Teapot illistration, possibly both. Either way the Straw man issue should probably be addressed. So let me see if I can try again, but please bare with me because I think you do have a pretty good idea of what a straw man argument is.

1) In a Straw man argument party B deliberately misrepresents party A's claim, then refutes that scenario as to create the illusion of having refuted party A's actual claim. For example:

A: Rear wheel drive cars have more available grip to accelerate with and change direction than front wheel drive cars.

B: But the Honda Civic type R can out accelerate and out corner a 1938 beetle, there's no way that's true!

The break down: The statement in A is 100% factually correct; in a rear wheel drive car the front tires only control the direction of the vehicle while the rear wheels propel it (and RWD cars also benefit from weight transfer). Front wheel drive vehicles on the other hand must use the same tires for acceleration as for altering direction and thus have far less available grip. B's statement I presume is factually accurate, but also irrelevant. The Honda Civic type R has better tires, better suspension, more horse power, etc, but it's not a fair comparison. If prepared similarly you would find that the Bug would be frighteningly fast and could easily trounce a similarly equipped Civic type R.

2) Russel's argument can absolutely be superficially mistaken for a Straw man argument per your illustration on 23 Jan 2011. In this scenario the reader gives little credit to Bertrand Russell assuming him and reduces the argument and asserts that a direct comparison is being made. The logic goes precisely as you illustrated, but I'll re-illustrate it:

A: The moon is made of cheese.

B: I have a mouse who loves cheese but hasn't been to the moon, so the moon cannot be made out of cheese.

In this case a random thought was taken which happens to be false, and B refutes it with another claim that really doesn't have any relevance to anything and thus can't possibly illustrate anything. The reason why you mistake Russel's Teapot for a "Straw Man" argument is because it has been reconstructed as one thusly:

Tom: "I think that X is true"

Mot: "(Equates the likelihood and provability of the existence\truth of X to that of a teapot somewhere far out in space)"

And also the Text I eliminated in January

In common usage, Russell's teapot is often considered to be an example of a straw man argument in that it is used to claim that the provability of the hypothetical teapot is equivocal to the provability of an unrelated entity, in this it may also become an argument from ignorance in that it can be used to imply that absence of proof is proof of absence.

This is apparently in common usage, and thus rather confusing, but it's a very superficial interpretation of Russel's argument and doesn't make sense in it's actual context. Russel's actual argument is fairly clear (with some non-superficial thought) on the main page in it's original text and explained (I believe somewhat clearly) in my discussion post at 0637, 24 Jan 2010. Russel's "argument" is an illustration of how the arguments in support of gods are absurd and generally of an uninformed or unknowledgeable opinion. You seem to be dwelling on the idea that it's a teapot in space, but it could also be Zeus, the Invisible pink Unicorn, Russel isn't attacking God per se but the arguments in favor of God.

3) Russel's example of a Teapot is, as accused, intentionally absurd but that doesn't necessarily make it a straw man argument: Anyone can assert anything at any time, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claims, which everyone intuitively knows. For example: I typed this with a hockey puck.

The unsophisticated philosopher is trying to draw a direct correlation between Russel's Celestial Teapot and the argument for god (Teapot isn't there so God isn't there), but the reality is that the argument is indirect(A: I have a ball in my hand. B: Show me. VS A: I have a Cup in my hand. B: Show me.). It is accompanied by a direct implication (if there is such a thing) which is perhaps where the confusion stems from. The argument isn't simply that claim B is absurd THEREFORE claim A is absurd it's that, claim A is absurd and claim B is also absurd and it's absurd that you're favoring one absurdity over another. In the end I think this is best written: Any claim that wishes to be taken seriously requires verifiable evidence to support it or, at a minimum a testable (falsifiable) hypothesis.(Insert thoughts on Higgs Bozon here) The unstated idea is that you can't go around claiming everything and believing everything because that's absurd. Are you willing to believe that Elvis was reincarnated as my left shoe string? Or that I can have conversations with my desk which predicts the future and told me next week Hitler will be in Heaven playing the Bongos with Ghandi? Is it reasonable for me to demand that you not dismiss them or even demand you believe my claims without substantiation? These are all somewhat irrefutable claims, but there's simply no reason for anyone to believe them or take my word for it. I certainly understand why some are mistaken since this might be considered a philosophical nuance, if you tell me god exists and I tell you Hitler and Ghandi are playing bongos in heaven together I can see why you would want to suggest I was using a straw man. Russell explains this however in that these arguments were carefully created to be unprovable (unlike my cheese & car examples which are actually Straw Men). All this is really just a misapplication & understanding of what a Straw Man argument really is. I personally believe this argument was written in exasperation as an editorial or letter since it can so easily be misunderstood and the text clearly links the argument to refuting a higher power and practically begs to be decryed at first blush as a Straw Man. Generally logical arguments are easier to follow and better written but, again, Russel's argument isn't directly stated (he isn't hitting you in the head with it) so it's getting missed. Again, the underlying argument is that all claims require some sort of data to support them, Celestial Teapot, Celestial god, Celestial Cheese, Fast Front wheel drive cars.

After writing this it is clear to me that some semblance of this should be included in the main article, but I've no idea how it should be included. Any thoughts on somehow including a lay explanation of the argument which includes the mischaracterisation of Russel's Teapot as a Straw Man and improving this article?

Grimsooth (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfalsifiability?

Sorry to swoop in here and change the definition in the opening paragraph, but it said Russel's teapot was illustrating:

"the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims"

It should read "making scientifically falsifiable claims". The claim does not have to be false, but rather if it is flase then it can be proved to be so. I've corrected it now anyway. Larryisgood (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

... ummm. No, I think "unfalsifiable" is correct. Any philosophers out there? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Larry is wrong I'm afraid. You cannot prove that there isn't a god, therefore a claim that there is a god is "unfalsifiable". Rob Sinden (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct, which is exactly why Russell included in his analogy conditions placed upon the teapot that render it unfalsifiable (which, by the way, also renders Eric Reitan's criticism wholly irrelevant, and illustrative of a real straw man argument).Ninahexan (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If a theory is falsifiable, then it is possible to prove it false if it were in fact false, if it is unflasifiable then it is not possible to prove it false, regardless of whether it is or not. In order for somebody to provide sufficient warrant for their position they must present a theory that it is possible to prove false if it is so. That was the entire point of Russel's teapot. His teapot theory was unfalsifiable since we can never know if there is a teapot floating in space, he was satirizing unflasifiable claims with a ridiculous one about teapots in space. His point was that his teapot theory was not falsifiable, and thus did not provide sufficient warrant for considering the position that there was a teapot. And I'm not a philosopher by trade but I did study russell's teapot briefly under a philosophy graduate. I'll be changing it back now. No disrespect intended. Larryisgood (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, just read the page on falsifiability. Larryisgood (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Your description of what Russell meant is basically correct, but the word required in the article is therefore unfalsifiable. I have reverted. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is due to an ambiguity in the opening sentence. I read it this way: when it says "the burden of proof lies upon" I read it as saying the act of proving relies on somebody making a falsifiable claim. Do you read it as saying "if somebody makes an unfalsifiable claim, they shoulder the burden of proof"? Larryisgood (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Yes, I absolutely read it that way. If a "burden of proof" lies upon Person A, that means that Person A is the one who has to do the proving. Note that it says "lies", not "relies". Refer to the article on philosophic burden of proof to see how the phrase is used. I fail to see any ambiguity. Does anyone else read it differently? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with view that there is no ambiguity. unfalsifiable is appropriate for this context. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Need counter-counter-arguments

The counter-arguments should be counter-arguments, not just criticisms. Counter-counter arguments should also be allowed. For example,

1) counter-counter-argument against the James Wood counter-argument against the burden of proof; if it is just a matter of which is more fundamental or transcendent, a universal god should be a 'more reasonable' belief than a god that non-universal, which means that e.g. Christianity is a 'more reasonable' belief than Hinduism. And it could be argued that Buddhism should then be a 'more reasonable' belief than Christianity, because in the Buddhist system everything is god(ish) rather than simply an artifact created by god. The point is that James Wood's counter-argument depends on a subjective valuation of what is "grand[er] and big[ger] idea", which is not always achievable through logic.

2) counter-counter-argument against the Eric Reitan counter-argument against the burden of proof; a god that can affect the physical universe (which includes people's minds by communication or mental state alteration) is in (logical) principal provable: if a god can take physical action e.g. by levitating a person, that can be verified; if a god can communicate with people that can be verified (telling people to filter, then boil their drinking water would have been a good one, as would keeping rats out to avoid the Black Death, or eating livers to avoid rickets). Occam's Razor then swings down on the reason that any existent god chooses to only provide such proof well away from objective measuring apparatus, or chooses not to communicate useful ideas; the availability of a choice is the unneccessary entity.

Irateidiot (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can source these counter-arguments to the criticism of Russell's teapot (as you say, the counter-counter-arguments), I worry that this breaches the neutrality of the article and gives a final say to the rejection of these counter-arguments, rather than the criticisms themselves, which was the intent of the section. Furthermore, the phrase "it can be argued" is typically called out as being "weasel words", the problem here only compounded by the lack of a citation.

For now, I'm going to place a citation needed tag at the end of the two last sentences in the Criticism section ("However it ... be reached.") I'll allow other Wikipedians to reach a firmer decision on the matter.

Lyly _ Neuc (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone please fix this muddled mess from paragraph 1: "it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong". It took me 5 reads to figure out what this phrase meant. NONSENSICAL, NOT TO DOUBT, COULD NOT, WRONG. 1 short phrase uses 4 negatives in a space of 22 words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.32.78 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

References

References in "Criticism" section (5-7, 7 not existing?) are not links. I think someone forgot to change them, or something like that - because referecnes in next section (5 and 6) are ok. 87.204.172.193 (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Philosophical criticism of the analogy

There have been repeated deletions of philosophical criticism of the analogy. As far as I can see, there have been no meritorious objections to this. Obviously, criticism of Russel's analogy by other philosophers is appropriate and within the scope of the article. I am reverting it. Mamalujo (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't put back those edits without consensus here, because that content is being disputed. So I'm reverting those. Please try to reach consensus before putting that content or any part of it back.

• Here is the list why any material from Brian Garvey shouldn't be included

1. 'Brian Garvey' is not notable, I couldn't even find a wiki article for this person. He is just a lecturer with no notable published books.
2. All the source you have is just one PDF file written by this non-notable person on an unknown religious website. (arsdisputandi.org)
3. There are NO secondary sources refering to this PDF file.
4. Currently, this article is grossly giving WP:UNDUE weight to this PDF file.
5. In effect it is NO-way a WP:RS

Thus we should remove all references of this PDF file and it's relevent content.

• The other source -[6] are lecture notes on some religious website and it does not even mention 'Russell's teapot', so not a WP:RS and has no point in including it as source of this article.

• The next source - [7] is a blog and I think it barely qualifies as WP:RS. But the blog entry is criticism of 'application of this analogy' against god and not the criticism of the analogy itself. (See below point for more details). So probably a sentence or two can be mentioned from this source, so we don't give WP:UNDUE weight to one person's blog entry.

• The whole point of 'Russell's teapots' analogy is that Claims should be falsifiable. The criticism should be of this point. This analogy is applied in many scenarios. It just so happens that this analogy is applied against God many times. All the criticism being mentioned here is the criticism of that application of analogy against god. It is NOT criticism of the original 'Russell's teapot' analogy.

So the criticism section of this article should content only criticism of the analogy and NOT criticism the common applications of it. Abhishikt (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As to your objections:

1. "'Brian Garvey' is not notable" - sources need not be notable. Notability is a criteria for inclusion of an article not a source. This objection is completely without merit.
2. "All the source you have is just ..." The journal is an academic journal of philosophy, refereed and peer reviewed hosted by Utrecht University in the Netherlands. It is precisely the type of source which is reliable and should be used for philosophy topics. In fact, with the exception of Atkins, it is superior to the sources on which the article is currently based, mostly popular works by non-experts - Wired magazine, New Republic, a literary critic and novelist, Dawkins (he is a biologist, after all). Garvey is a professor of philosophy and Lancaster Univ. in the U.K. This objection is completely without merit. I'm trying to improve the quality of this article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia; the sources should not all be dilettantes to the subject. Again no merit to the objection.
3. "There are NO secondary sources refering to" I'm not sure that that's true but it's irrelevant, especially since it's a pretty new article. Again no merit to the objection.
4. Undue weight. Not at all. Currently the criticism of the analogy is by a literary critic and novelist. The criticism of an actual philosopher in a philosophical journal surely deserves more weight. Again no merit to the objection.
5. RS. As addressed above, there's absolutely no doubt this is a reliable source on this subject. I'll gladly take it to the reliable sources notice board and have no doubt what the result will be.

As to the other sources, there is an argument to be made (one is a blog but it is a blog by a philosopher), but in the interest of compromise, I will delete those. I am reinstating the material minus the sourcing about which there is a legitimate issue raised. Mamalujo (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My problem with all these quotes from Garvey is that it was done at such extraordinary and repetitious length. I have reduced it. It still is largely the same argument as that made by the other people quoted later in the section, however (roughly, God is big and important but Teapot is trivial, therefore I should believe in God but not in Teapot) - so I am not convinced that Garvey is worth quoting in addition to those others. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that your summation of the argument here on the talk page is quite off, but in the article it's accurate and succinct. I reinserted one sentence which seemed necessary. Mamalujo (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Mamalujo, I have requested you more than 3 times that please reach consensus here before putting the disputed content back in the article. This is the final time I am asking you to stop putting the disputed content in the article before resolving the dispute here and reaching consensus.

Below are my responses for objection to include the PDF file written by 'Brian Garvey' as source, which covers more than half of criticism section.

1. You didn't understand, the person needs to be notable for his material to carry any weight. That's why whatever I publish in my website on this topic, has no place in wikipedia. That's why a PDF file written by a lecturer with no notable published books, doesn't carry any weight.
2. There is simply no comparision between 'Brian Garvey' and 'Richard Dawkins'. Dawkins is notable scientist, famous atheist with many best-seller books to his name. He has won many notable awards and is considered as expert in this area by media. While Garvey is lecturer.
3. As far I could see the PDF file is published on a religous website. If it is peer reviewed and published academic journal of philosophy, you have to provide sources which showes that this is published in respected academic philosophy journal. See List of philosophy journals for what constitutes a respected academic philosophy journal.
4. Wikipedia is based off using secondary sources and secondary sources are very important. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. If there are no secondary sources, it shows that the primary source is not notable and worth mentioning. I couldn't find any secondary sources. You need to provide secondary sources which are WP:RS.
5. Even if we could satify the above objections and somehow qualify it as WP:RS, we should only mention one-sentence from this source, so as not to give WP:UNDUE weight to this source.

Looking forward to hear from you. Regards. Abhishikt (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is not simply a "PDF file written by 'Brian Garvey'". It is an article published in a peer reviewed journal of philosophy whose very subject is the celestial teapot.

1. "You didn't understand, the person needs to be notable for his material to carry any weight." Is that right? Please show me where it says so. The journal is notable is cited by and bears the contributions of indisputably noted academics.
2. "There is simply no comparision between 'Brian Garvey' and 'Richard Dawkins'." What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Oprah also happens to be notable, popular and a best seller.
3. "As far I could see the PDF file is published on a religous website." I think your bigotry is showing a bit. Whether a journal has a religious or strictly atheists POV or somewhere in between is all beside the point. Take a look a that list, there a many noted philosophical journals which touch on the subject or have a religious theme. It is a peer reviewed academic journal. Go ahead, make an inquiry on the reliable sources notice board. You're appearing increasingly foolish even arguing the point.
4. Secondary sources - I think ALL of the sources in the section are secondary sources.
5. Weight - The matter has been trimmed down and now has due weight.Mamalujo (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I appreciate Mamalujo for doing a good job in creating article for AD. This is the way to go in wikipedia. Regarding the comparision point between 'Brian Garvey' and 'Richard Dawkins'; the comparision was originally brought-in by you. I just stated the facts that notability of Dawkins greatly out-weighs Garvey. So I think we have consensus here to keep the text from Garvey, but trim it down to one-sentence. I will work on trimming the Garvey's part so as not to give WP:UNDUE weight. Abhishikt (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The section was already trimmed for due weight by SNALWIBMA. I think any more trimming will make the points less comprehensible. I oppose it. I think we have reached a good result on the section. I think attention could be given to other parts of the article to improve it. Mamalujo (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have trimmed the section of Brian Garvey as discussed. The removed two sentences were not so meaningful and not relevent to this page, as those were mainly about why atheists are wrong and why there is god. As I told above this article about the Russell's teapot's analogy and NOT application of this analogy against god. Now we already have 3 criticisms about APPLICATION of this analogy, which still seems WP:UNDUE. Regards Abhishikt (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(This section was edited after a discussion with administrators by the original editor. Grimsooth (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC))I agree that Brian Garvey is not reputable enough to include in this article though applaud the effort for attempting to add additional criticism for Russel's Tea pot, though finding a reputable source for it may be akin to finding a reputable source to dispute the application of anti-biotics. While Mr. Garvey's argument is published in a "peer reviewed" journal the "Online Journal of Philosophy of religion" (emphasis added) Ars Disputandi doesn't qualify for inclusion (WP:QS?): it is not notable, well known, and is reviewed by theologians (I updated the wiki with the research I just completed, but it's edited by ministers and explicit creationists) who don't necessarily meet the criteria for academic criticism in the context of the philosophy at hand. One has merely to read the article to determine that it commits the logical fallacy "Confirming the Antecedant", so I don't think Ars Disputandi can meet the standard of a philosophical journal (except as journal about religion, which it actually is). To be clear instead of debating the point "assertions need evidence" Mr. Garvey seems to be arguing that "assertions need evidence" unless the assertion is the existence of god, though he presents in the fashion - The universe exists therefore God exists. I understand the need for specificity in my argument that Mr. Garvey is not a notable or reliable source, but don't know what wikipedia policy that falls under. Apparently it is not WP:SOURCES, since he is considered acceptably published by administrators though that particular policy only applies to the fact "well published or not" not the relevance of that material to this article. So perhaps Mr. Garvey's inclusion is not due or possibly he could be considered a questionable source as the Journal is almost exclusively about personal opinion (a.k.a personal revelation). In any event I maintain that all paragraphs pertaining to Mr. Garvey be removed immediately and without delay.

I do acknowledge that even though Russell's Teapot is not a religious argument in contemporary usage it is used almost exclusively in that context and thus inclusion of such counter-arguments should be included if they meet the standard and are properly labeled as such.

Grimsooth (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Your objections to Garvey and the journal he's published in are totally without merit. But go ahead and raise the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I think you'll find that what I say is correct. Mamalujo (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Mamalujo, Stop adding contents which were have already discussed and reached consensus that he is WP:UNDUE. You also needs to be careful in making edits (you shouldn't just revert back to old version, deleting other unrelated improvements of the article). I have made edits as per our discussion in this thread. I ask you to read this thread again, before replying or making any edits. I agree with Grimsooth that Garvey's content is WP:UNDUE even for one sentence. But that's the compromise I made in order to stop wasting my hours and I'm sticking to that compromise. So I expect you to respect the consensus reached earlier and be rational in discussion. Abhishikt (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect to Mamalujo's objections I believe our varied views are actually slight but painfully relevant. While I don't object to theological beliefs, they have no merit in a logical and philosophical discussion if they cannot be well substantiated, and it is not clear that the article in question is anything more than lip service to the establishment akin to the Christian Science monitor. The article you have offered as a criticism is edited by theologians and the reversions you are attempting to make suggest the Journal is not biased and instead is "subject to heavy scrutiny" and those statements are untrue. If Altria commissioned a study that suggested that cigars are good for you, I would not believe it. Nor would I believe a study by the Christian science monitor that prayer helped sick people (again, it may but the source in these cases is not credible). If you believe Mr. Garvey's paper should be included, some provision for it's source must be made. Though, again, Ars Disputandi is not a "published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So again vis a vis WP:SOURCES should not be included. If Mr Garvey were published in the New York times, The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, or the like I would not have my current objection. And thank you for your advice, I will raise the issue on the notice board - though as you no doubt are aware they likely don't have the compunction to deal with this dilemma of semantics of philosophy vs theology as that is the ground I feel we may be standing on.

As a professional scientist the default view of nothing is easy for me and I am simply not seeing Mamalujo's view. You're clearly fairly active so I'd like for you to help me understand why the inclusion of the word "rational" pertains in the sentence ". . . belief in God is unlike belief in a celestial teapot as there are many rational reasons for belief in a deity". Here is the definition of rational as I understand it:

ra·tion·al   [rash-uh-nl, rash-nl]

1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.

2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.

3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.

4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.

5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.

And naturally:

rea·son   [ree-zuhn]noun

1.a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.

2.a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.

3.the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.

4.sound judgment; good sense.

5.normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

For me, "rational" in that sentence is editorializing. If you say "there are many rational reasons for belief in . . ." I expect that sentence to be followed by a rational argument, and despite my time as a long time alter server and barer of the book I cannot think of a rational argument for belief in a deity, though I can give you a host of irrational ones. And keep in mind I'm not disputing the merits of irrational arguments (such as love, etc) I'm merely pointing out that those arguments are not rational, and thus the word rational does not apply. I believe the word rational should be omitted from that sentence and feel that the sentence without adjective holds fairly well and far better than the likely proper word "irrational", for there are many reasons for belief in a deity though it's not clear to me that the majority of those are rational. So, show me where I'm wrong here, why is rational an appropriate word and why does this source fit the burden presented in wp:sources. Your time is appreciated Grimsooth (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment I saw this at the RS/N and I have no comment on the content issues being discussed here but one serious misrepresentation needs correcting. Grimsooth claims that "Ars Disputandi is not a 'published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'." Ars Disputatndi is a peer reviewed journal in the philosophy of religion published by an academic publisher. It most certainly has such a reputation. The author is also a well published philosopher of relevant fields. He has published a large number of peer reviewed articles, and a book on the Philosophy of Biology. Now again, I have no opinion on the DUE weight issue, but please do not spread these misrepresentations about the sources around. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, as I am not fluent with the specific lexicon of Wikipedia policy. I was questioning the source of a claim and it's relevance to the article, I believed this fell under the WP:sources policy as the phrasing in that policy suggested it fit ("Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made . . .the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments."). However the editors/administrators of WP:RSN who have contacted me are actually concerned with the objective "True/False published" state in an effort to maintain neutrality, which is not clear from WP:Sources as stated (though it is the policy of WP:V which is not my objection) and I may have directed my objection to the wrong under the advice of Mamalujo. If the objection "This article is not about belief in god, it's literally about the validity of making unfalsifiable claims and an argument based on religion has no merit in it (as those arguments presume that unfalsifiable claims are acceptable)," falls under another policy, and I'm not clear on which one that is. WP:Due may be that place. My point is simply that on a fundamental basis a journal such as Science, Nature, or Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy has a different standard for "fact checking and accuracy" then a Religious Journal even if that religious journal (in this case Ars Disputandi) is devoted to philosophy. Merely adding the word "philosophy" to a title doesn't make it a philosophical journal, e.g. The Philosophy of Good life according to Leviticus. I dispute that Mr. Garvey is a philosopher in the 'relevant field: a term exists for religious philosophers and that word is generally theologian or theologist because their burdens are different. A Plastic Surgeon is still a Surgeon, but I wouldn't want him to preform brain surgery on anyone. At this level, semantics are important. But the policies remains unclear to me, as the sentence "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."(WP:Due) Mr. Garvey's viewpoint is in the tiny minority of logic philosophers, but not among theologians, and perhaps not among the general populous. Who is included as the basis for the standard? Countless people still believe hot tubs are a vector for STDs, why isn't that included in the wiki-article under transmission? I submit that it is because it is patently false, and nearly completely discredited. In a way the entire point of this article is that god is not relevant to this article, but it seems to have quite a bit about god in it anyway.

Grimsooth (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend but you appear to have no knowledge of the fields about which you are speaking. Ars Disputandi is not a "religious journal," but a peer reviewed philosophy journal, edited by eminent philosophers of religion. These editors are by and large not "theologians," and theology is quite separate from philosophy of religion. And what you say about Garvey shows that you haven't even bothered to follow the links that were provided for you. Let's try again. Click here. Garvey is a philosopher of science. Yes that's right. He has written a book on the Philosophy of Biology and appears to focus on evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, philosophy of mind and philosophy of language. Where on earth do you get the idea that he is a "theologian?" When you repeat the same falsehoods over and over despite the good faith efforts of others to make reality as clear as possible it starts to become disruptive.Griswaldo (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be disruptive I simply have reached different conclusions based on the evidence presented (i.e. followed links as well as explored the issue independently), and I don't mean to be thick but the evidence presented is not persuasive. I agree that theology is explicitly a different subject than the philosophy of religion. However when someone explicitly includes the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God/divinity and of God's relation to the world into their philosophy I believe that makes that person a theologian even if they do not label themselves as such. That is the derived definition and the accepted definition of theology according to Webster (Standard English). Your definition of theology restricts it's use strictly to the study of religion, and you may consider that most proper in the academic field and I wouldn't dispute that, but if you would like me to use another word that you deem more appropriate from your lexicon you will have to provide it me. That separate word should describe a person who conducts themselves under the derived definition of theologian, and if your definition is incompatible with the accepted Standard English definition our divided usage of the terms is our primary problem and we cannot help each other until that disparity is resolved. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is intended to be written in Standard English as much as possible, and in that case my use of the term theologian applies. I appreciate your repeated good faith efforts to make this issue clear to me, but ask you to reconsider my lack of clarity as a distinct perspective on category. I am not party to how people choose to classify themselves, my assertion is simply that based on the accepted definitions of "theologian" Brian Garvey is a theologian whether or not he chooses to classify himself as such as evidenced by his statements and body of work. Killing people makes you a murderer. Being an air-breathing vertebrate animal with hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands functional in mothers with young makes you a mammal. Claiming that "human beings cannot live without a ‘sacred canopy’ that provides a system of meaning, defines acceptability and grants authority" makes you a theologian, and stating "The naturalist belief that immanent reality is all there is, is a metaphysical assumption, not a scientific fact," means you don't understand science nor the scientific method, or at the very least are not applying it to that statement. Again, thank you for your efforts and consideration, and wish to apologize once again as this is clearly vexing for you. Grimsooth (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No Garvey is not a theologian by any acceptable definition of the word, and besides that we do not categorize people based on our own understanding of what a term means. If you want to call Garvey a theologian you'll need a reliable source that does. All of the sources that I've seen show us that he has a degree in philosophy, that he's on a faculty of philosophy, that he publishes in the area of philosophy of science, and that his own stated interests are in that area. So you see there is no acceptable "evidence" for your view, a view that on Wikipedia is considered original research.Griswaldo (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While I'd like to argue that my categorization comes from an understanding of English I understand your position now and agree that my perspective counts as original research per the Wikipedia definition especially because of the context of the argument itself and it's general contemporary use. Thanks for your effort and time, I'll try to do better in the future. Grimsooth (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)