Talk:Truth in Science/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old & untitled thread

This page has massive problems - almost nothing about Truth in Science and a lot of general material on creationism and/or ID that belongs on other pages.

No this is about a creationist group called Truth in Science.--Filll 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this page does not have 'massive problems', but huge potential. The truth about 'Truth in Science' is something which ID creationists don't want to hear. The article calls a spade a spade, and cry-babies cannot deal with that. A, 19th January 2007.

I am a little concerned that some editors seem to conflate humanism with evolution, as if to say that people believe in evolution because they are humanists [or the presence of humanism among evolutionists makes evolution a philosophical view analogous to religious creationism]. But that humanism can be religious, or non-religious is the point: people accept evolution owing to the substantial, verifiable, and parsimonious evidence in favour of evolutionary theory, whether they are theists, atheists, agnostics, humanists, or none of the aforementioned. In stark contrast, there is a direct correlation between religious faith, and belief in creationism or Intelligent Design. Thus, it would be fair to say that acceptance of evolution depends not entirely upon one's philosophical world-view, but upon the evidence. There is no moral symmetry between 'humanist evolutionists' and 'religious creationists': they are not, in other words both. A, 19th January 2007.

A: Concerns noted. However, it now seems that the word "humanist" was a quote from a Sunday Times report, and not POV. As such, its use is relevant. There are other WP pages for discussing the merits of ID - let's keep this professional and just use this one for what the title says.

This is being partially addressed at the moment at Creation-evolution controversy, and at Objections to evolution, and we will have this examined more in detail in some other articles that are currently in sandbox form.--Filll 15:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Hi Drogger5, want to discuss the intro? Why do you think it's POV?

Swangyy 11:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it right to describe TiS as "conservative" they are trying to subvert the scientific orthodoxy which doesnt seem conservative. on the other hand i dont know much about the structure of christian churches so maybe there is a valid reason for this epithet.

Swangyy 11:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article Is correct the describe this organisation as "conservative Christian" no statement is made about its scientific attitude. The organisation promotes videos from the Discovery Institute. Would people prefer the description "fundamentalist"?

Wilmot1 10:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Drogger5, but I see the following problems with the introduction:

• I can find nothing specifically "conservative Christian" on the TiS website. If we just mean "run by conservative Christians", we should say so.
• If TiS are promoting "alternative views" beyond ID, then we need in the article to say what they are. At very least, there needs to be a citation for it. What other alternative views are we talking about?
• From the TiS website, it seems that they also want criticisms of Darwinism taught. The introduction doesn't mention this.

DweezilBert 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have removed references to "Conservative" from intro. I have also rephrased it a little to make it less "balanced" and more accurate. Swangyy 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Drogger5 here. I agree with Dweezilbert's points, but some of that is gone now. Critique of present opening: 1 If its going to say that they are all Christians, we need to add citations. I see nothing at all about "John Perfect" for example in the article. 2 "teach the controversy" also needs a citation. Is this something TiS have said, or Swangyy's personal interpretation? 3 Stuff about "fallacious interpretation of liberal principles" has to go - it is POV. There is no agreed Wikipedia position on what interpretations "liberal principles" are allowed - this is pure POV. 4 From what I can see the whole point of the TiS website is to discuss empirical evidence - from the latter part of our opening paragraph you'd think they were against that!

Hi Drogger I reverted the stuff about liberal principles. Are you perchance American? The use of "liberal" in America is non-standard so maybe there is a misunderstanding here about the use of language. The point is that TiS try to imply that scientific conclusions are reached through open debate. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Scientific inference can only be made by examining empirical evidence. It's very important to understand this point if one is to understand the error in TiS argument. Swangyy 15:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi in the January 2004 edition of the Evangelical Times an advert for TiS appeared inviting applicants for a job. The advert included a quote from Psalms. The advert made it clear that the organisation's agenda it to end the teaching of evolution and to replace it with a literal teaching of biblical creation Wilmot1 08:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the POV edits from "both sides" -- I think that if you are knowledgeable in the field of evolutionary biology, or even the tactics of creationists, TiS quite honestly damn themselves, and for ID creationists, they get a fair hearing of well-source material in the article. Please try to relax, because there is plenty in this article which shows TiS to be something more than what they're claiming to be on their most visible web pages. The is plenty about "teach the controversy"...TiS even mention "teaching the controversy", which is included in the article. Drogger5: "From what I can see the whole point of the TiS website is to discuss empirical evidence - from the latter part of our opening paragraph you'd think they were against that!" Plenty of readily visible material from TiS is on this article, but we don't want to take everything they say literally, so that is why the article includes their motivations [in their own words], and the critical reception. Thanks,Blind designer 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I should rearrange my last comment, because Swangyy appeared to direct a comment to Drogger, which I in fact quoted. I hope this clears things up. Thanks, Blind designer 15:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

they are against it. Science is about discussing empirical evidence and the case is open and shut: evolution is true, ID is false. end of story. this is an encyclopaedia if u don't accept empirical science please don't edit. consequently have reverted much of the opening paragraph to reflect the truth. thanks Swangyy 15:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that there is no evidence that they all the organisers are Christians though I suspect they are. Personally I think that this is an important point, but since there is much in the article about the Christian links of most of the organisers I am happy if there is no reference to Christianity in the intro. Swangyy 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blind designer, the current intro isn't acceptable. it implicitly promotes TiS claim that there is a controversy about evolution. There isn't. I will try and alter it to overcome this fundamental problem. Swangyy 15:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sawngyy. From what you said on the talk page, I can say that I personally completely agree with you. If a reporter asked me what I thought of Truth in Science, and ID creationism, I would express pretty much what you said. If you can find a way to describe the canard of the so-called "theory in crisis", and do so with verifiable information which is relevant to TiS, then you have my vote. Good luck. Blind designer 15:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I changed "liberal" to "democratic" and shifted stuff about public opinion lower down the article. I don't think public opinion is relevant except in so far as TiS use it to imply a scientific controversy exists where there isn't one. as such i dont think the ref should be in the intro. (thou i agree it is very relevant to the article) If you still have problems please discuss them in detail and we'll try to find common factual ground

best wishes Swangyy 17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have added to the introduction, with an extra link to an article by Stephen Jay Gould, which addresses how evolution is a theory and a fact. I expanded the Royal Society bit, to include another quote, and a more weighty footnote. I also improved the English. Hope this affords a more satisfying introduction. Regards, Blind designer 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi BL much improved I approve - thanks! Swangyy 10:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Swangyy. I am glad. If you have any further ideas for inclusion or modification, please include them. Blind designer 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Should a sentence about the attitude of the UK Government be included? Wilmot1 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wilmot1. Are you referring to a sentence that is already included in the article, or do you want a special quote put in? Blind designer 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

HI, [User:Blind designer|Blind designer]] The UK Government has made a specific statement about the suitability of the material sent out by TiS, saying, in effect, that the material is unsuitable for science class. This article would not be complete or NPOV without the details of that statement. Wilmot1 09:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wilmot1. Do you know where I can find this statement? I am looking now, but the only source I can find, is a Guardian article which said the government will write to schools, telling them not to use the information packs. I need a "hard" source for this government position, if you can find it. Thanks. Blind designer 16:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blind designer I can't find an actual letter but will keep looking. However I have found a statement by an Education Minister in Hansard http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm061101/text/61101w0010.htm#column_455W , this is an answer to a written question and reads "Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice he plans to give to schools on the information pack circulated to all schools by Truth in Science. [94516]

Jim Knight [holding answer 18 October 2006]: It is up to schools to decide what teaching resources they 1 Nov 2006 : Column 456W need to help them deliver the national curriculum for science effectively. Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum, the Truth in Science information pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum.

The national curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught: how uncertainties in scientific knowledge and scientific ideas change over time; the role of the scientific community in validating these changes; variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes; and, similarities and differences between species can be measured and classified." Wilmot1 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wilmot1. This quote is already in the article [see "Information pack controversy" -- at the bottom of the subsection]. If you can find the letter, with sufficient information to provide a reference to the document, please include it. Thanks, Blind designer 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blind designer Can't find it on the DfES site or the QCA site but will keep looking. Wilmot1 15:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

The intro has heavy POV, such as the loaded term "specious" and the use of scare quotes. This is an article about an organization. It should describe the organization and its activities, not present arguments about the beliefs the organization promotes. Those arguments may be entirely valid, but they are not encyclopedic.Eseymour 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any Neutrality issues with this article cosndiering that ID is considered pseudoscience by the relevent majority. 151.151.21.100 17:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the NPOV policy. For example, it states: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one." It's fine to state that this or that organization has described ID as such-and-such, but it's not acceptable to use loaded adjectives like "specious" without attributing them to a specific source. Ex: instead of saying "This fallacious misunderstanding of science," it should say something like "So-and-so has pointed out that this is a misunderstanding of the scientific process" and give a citation.

Furthermore, the intro is too cluttered. Arguments about the merits of the organization's actions should be placed in an appropriate subsection. The main point of this article is to describe the organization itself. Eseymour 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's a sourcing issue, then you should use {{fact}}, not {{NPOV}}. And regarding the NPOV issue, please read the whole policy page, especially WP:NPOV#Undue weight. To use your example, you would be creating undue weight by suggesting that both the fringe view and the mainstream view were equally supported, which obviously they are not. The wording could be improved, but it doesn't violate NPOV. Guettarda 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the intro. I did not remove any material, but rather moved the criticisms of the organization to the "Criticism" section, so that the intro contains just a basic description of the organization. (Compare this to the existing article on the Discovery institute.) Eseymour 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Creating a "criticism" section isn't acceptable - segregating "criticisms" violates the manual of style. I was serious when I suggested that you read WP:NPOV - you have done precisely what I said was unacceptable, per NPOV. Guettarda 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not create the "criticism" section. It already existed, though I did rename it from "critical reception." (That term seems most often used for works of art or literature, not for advocacy groups.) Eseymour 16:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote much of this article, and did my utmost to keep my own opinions on Intelligent Design out of the article. The use of quotation marks, or as Eseymour called them "scare quotes" are appropriate, because phrases such as "fair and accurate" appear on the Truth in Science page that I referenced in the main article, i.e. this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_Science#_note-13. The article contains 79 references, all of which demonstrates that the article uses verifiable information from reliable sources. I agree with Guettarda about WP:NPOV#Undue weight: this is a controversial issue about a discredited theory of origins, and I think that the article more than adequately references the position of mainstream scientific organisations on the matter of ID, and the creation-evolution controversy. The references to pro-ID creationism material are there for readers and editors to evaluate the position of Truth in Science and their activities against the position of mainstream scientific organisations. I did change the words like "specious" and "fallacious" to "perspective" because I wanted to avoid an editing dispute which might potentially alter the content and relevance of the introduction. I hope that these changes preserve the introduction, and free up time for editors to improve/add to other sections in this article. Blind designer 17:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Blind designer, for removing the loaded terms "specious" and fallacious." The intro no longer reads as biased to me, as it did before. I still think it needs cleanup, however. You said "this is a controversial issue about a discredited theory of origins," however, this is not an article about ID, it is an article about an organization. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but it seems to me that arguments about the validity of ID should be placed in the article on Intelligent Design. Look at the article on the Discovery institute. The DI is a much more prominent group than TiS, yet its intro is less than half the size of this article's intro. Eseymour 16:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting large chunks of this article

Please can editors stop removing large chunks of content from this article. Firstly, Intelligent Design and Creationism are pseudoscience: there is no controversy here. One cannot make ID and Creationism scientific simply by saying so, or by contorting wording into convincing-sounding arguments. Secondly, the section on Truth in Science and Speciation is directly relevant to this article, because it appears on the TiS website; a site which promotes the putting of ID and Creationism on equal terms with evolutionary biology. I should mention, that the arbitrary removal of large chunks of material without good reason, for example, a consensus among editors on the talk page, constitutes vandalism. A, 23 January 2007, 20:19 (GMT). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.98.147.61 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Having looked at the deletions, I think most are justified. There seem to be some editors very keen on lumping in any and all criticisms of ID, creationism and/or religious opinions - stuff that belongs on other pages. Stuff that isn't about TiS doesn't belong here, however true it is. DweezilBert 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think so. Sorry. This is just blatant nonsense. Are people involved with Truth in Science to behonest about their views and those of their founder? I say, lay it all out on the table, and let the cards fall where they may.--Filll 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that 86.143.94.198 changed the opening paragraph, which covered teach the controversy, yet Truth in Science clearly demonstrated that they favour the teaching of a "scientific controversy" over evolution and origins on their website. Now of course, TiS supporters will evade the "controversy" over evolution question, by simply stating that TiS only questions "origins". However, just look at the TiS site for yourself, and the quotes from their site on this article: TiS doubt whether the fact of evolution occurred as well. A, 24th January, 00:04 (GMT).

Is this article a stub?

I would like invite other editors to reconsider whether this article is a stub. The content of this article has certainly increased over the past month, or so, and a considerable amount of material is now verifiable. Maybe we should consider this article under the category of creationism, instead of a creationism stub? A, 23rd January 2007, 21:04 (GMT).

I agree - if no one objects I think it should be reclassified. Swangyy 11:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I reclassified this article from Creationism stub, and United Kingdom organisation stub to Category:Creationism, and Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom. If anyone would like to comment on this change, or discuss the status of this, please visit the talk page. Thanks. Blind designer 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Truth in Science and Speciation

I agree with the editor who thinks that this section constitutes original research or comment. Wikipedia is not the place for this - it should be deleted. DweezilBert 22:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So quoting directly is OR? I have heard it all now.--Filll 22:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

DweezilBert: You simply asserted that the section contains original research. You have provided no argument to support your position. Under your definition of "original research", just about every referenced source on this article is such. "It should be deleted" -- perhaps that is what you want. A, 23rd January 2007, 22:59 (GMT).

Hi, and thanks for mentioning me in your article.

I don't usually contribute to Wikipedia so apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong place etc. Under 'Truth in Science and Intelligent Design', you make reference to my letter to The Times and Dr Buggs response. You might want to link to the denoument to this conversation at http://truthinsciencerevealed.blogspot.com/search?q=chris+preedy . This seems to be an example of TiS failing to correct known errors in their materials - to date, Dr Buggs has not responded to any of my letters or to the online posting, and several factually incorrect statements remain on their website.

You might also check the spelling of my name...

Ta.

Chris Preedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.173.100 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone should register and log in

This article seems to be the focus of a lot of activity. I think people should register and log in and discuss the changes here on the talk page.--Filll 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this article is starting to look good Swangyy 11:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Focus of Article

Guys, there seems a lot of content on this page about "teach the controversy" and other issues, but the percentage of stuff about this organisation itself seems quite low. The "signal to noise" ratio needs improving. I plan to have a look into this organisation's website and see what we can do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spubert (talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 January 2007

Please register and sign your posts with four "tildes" like ~~~~--Filll 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a section on TiS projects to improve the focus of this article. Blind designer 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

BlindDesigner - I think a lot of your work is good - keep it up. I think that you are a lot better at keeping to NPOV than a couple of other editors. WP is not meant to be a propaganda platform - it's an encyclopedia!!!! Drogger5 14:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotes in blocks

I dislike putting quotation in blue blocks when they are part of the flow of the article. A quotation which is independent of the main text looks good in a block but otherwise it makes it harder to read the article. What is the wikipedia policy on this - what do other editors think?

Aalphas12 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of other ways to do quotations here.--Filll 16:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Which quotation blocks should we keep, and which should we revert back to their original style? I would agree, that highlighting a number of quotes, especially the one on eugenics, improves the layout, but others detract from the overall readability of the article. Let us discuss modifications. Blind designer 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

brits

Now you can get a tiny taste of what we get in the US. At least now you will not laugh quite so hard at us.--Filll 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Filll. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, when creationists believe that a rather invisible "force" designed living creatures. It's really rather quite amusing, actually. Blind designer 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Influence vs subvert or reform

To say a group is "subverting" science education is POV, just as it would be POV to say the group is "reforming" science education. The neutral point of view says that they are influencing science education. If you want this article to include the point of view that Truth in Science's goals would harm science education, quote a reliable source who says that. There are plenty of good arguments against giving ID equal time in science classrooms--no need to turn this article (which should be an encyclopedic description of an organization and its activities) into an attack piece. Eseymour 13:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"subvert" is not POV or an attack and is neutral - it is a statement of the truth. Truth can't be POV. Let's not get bogged down in relativist rubbish in an encyclopedia article about science. We must start from the hard facts - as far as any scientific theory can be true or false

1) evolution is true 2) intelligent design is false.

if you dont accept these facts you should not be editing an encyclopedia. If you do accept these facts "subvert" is neutral.

The word "subvert" has been there for many months, consequently I am reinstating it.

Cheers

This is not an article about science, it's an article about an organization. When you say that TiS has "Strategies for subverting science education," you are not simply asserting that ID is false, you are strongly implying that TiS is acting in bad faith. As much as you may personally oppose their activities, it is unfair for the article itself to accuse them of malfeasance (quoting a reputable source who makes such an accusation is fair game, of course).

Can you imagine an article about the UK's Labour Party having a section titled "Strategies for subverting public policy"? I think not. Eseymour 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is very much about science - TiS is an organisation devoted to the subvertion of scientific education in the UK. You are wrong to say that use of the word "subvert" implies that TiS are acting in bad faith. Take a look at the dictionary definition http://www.answers.com/subvert&r=67. This has nothing to do with my personal opposition to the activities of TiS. It has everything to do with presenting an accurate description of their activities in an encyclopedia article. I fail to see how one can object to the word "subvert" (unless you have not read it's definition). You are making the same mistake as the TiS leadership - assuming that "truth" (i.e. what should be in an encyclopedia article) depends on the balance of public opinion. It doesn't. I wont change "influencing" back to "subverting" until we have argued the issue out. Cheers Swangyy 13:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's insert the definition of "subvert" into your quote: "TiS is an organisation devoted to the [complete destruction] of scientific education in the UK." Really? I think any reasonable reader would identify that statement as hyperbole. Unless you have a source where someone in TiS has stated that their goal is to undermine science education, such a statement is speculation at best, defamation at worst.

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that TiS's activities pose a threat to science education. In that case, a suitable heading might be something like "Activities considered harmful to science education." But when you use the word strategy, you are assigning a specific intent to the organization. You simply cannot do that without proper documentation. Eseymour 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not hyperbole - fact. "Speculation? Defamation?" I am worried that you don't know the facts. I suggest you examine them before continuing to edit the article. Once again I emphasis that truth cannot be POV, nor can it be defamatory. Unfortunately an elementary understanding of science is required if one is to understand TiS (the article is about science). Evolution by reproduction, mutation and natural selection is the most successful scientific theory of all time. It explains all of life on earth. Evolution is a fact in the sense that no observation has ever been found to contradict it (unlike quantum mechanics, relativity etc). Evolution is also an inevitable theoretical consequence of a small number of simple assumptions which without any doubt apply to life on Earth. If you think that fundamentally misrepresenting the scientific method (argument ad populam) and demeaning the greatest scientific of achievement of all time does not amount to "subversion" I would be interested to know what you think does. It is certainly true that TiS poses a threat to science education and there is no doubt that they "intend" to do this and that if they succeed they will be "subverting" science education. If you doubt this I suggest you take a look at their website - they are quite open about their intent. Swangyy 13:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eseymour, I just looked at your talk page and noticed you are a "non-denominational Christian." Just to confirm can you assure me that you accept that empirical and analytic knowledge are the only forms of knowledge acceptable in an encyclopedia article. In particular can you confirm that religious myth does not influence your edits on this topic? Thanks Swangyy 13:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. From TiS's point of view, they are reforming science education. It is not only biased, but in fact it is false to assert that TiS has a strategy to subvert science education. They are no more trying to subvert education than any other activist group which tries to influence what or how students are taught. A strong argument can be made that the effect of TiS's intended changes to science education would be harmful, but that does not justify assigning evil intent to TiS. I suggest you carefully read the NPOV policy and also the NPOV FAQ, which has this to say about pseudoscientific topics:

If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view...

As for your question about my personal faith, frankly I think you've just said more about your own bias than mine. Many evolutionary biologists--perhaps a majority of them--identify themselves as Christians. Personally, I recognize evolution as a very compelling model and in fact the only truly workable model we have. So-called "microevolution" is a documented fact (drug resistant bacteria, etc.) I do think Intelligent Design is a compelling concept, but I don't support the efforts of TiS or other organizations to give ID equal time in school science class. But above all, I want articles such as this one to be unbiased representations of documented facts, not "talking points" written to denounce or discredit their subject. Eseymour 13:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I too want articles to be unbiased representations of documented facts. It is a fact that TiS are trying to subvert science education. I have explained why the word "subvert" is accurate and you havent disputed my argument. What TiS think they are doing is irrelevant to a description of what they are doing. (Let me assure you in passing, as a practicing scientist, that Intelligent Design is _not_ scientifically compelling. As a theory it is on a par with "flat-earth.") I have read the NPOV policy before thanks. I do not understand your point about "personal faith" and bias. My point is simply that relativism and religion have no place in wikipedia. Empirical and analytic evidence do.Swangyy 14:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

TiS's intent is not only relevant, it is a critical consideration when you try to describe their "strategies." It is logically impossible to have a strategy to do something you do not have the intent to do. With all due respect, I don't think you've read the NPOV policy (and FAQ) closely enough, because it clearly states that Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view, not a "Scientific Point of View." Debates are described, not engaged in. It is sufficient to describe prominent scientists' opinions of TiS--it is unnecessary and improper for the article itself to make allegations that TiS has malevolent intentions toward science education. Eseymour 15:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not describing a debate. We are describing TiS and their actions. TiS do have malevolent intentions - this is not an allegation it is factually true. Whether they regard their intentions as malevolent is a different question. You dont seem able to grasp this distinction however many times I point it out. I accept that wikipedia is not meant to take a "Scientific Point of View" but we are debating a description of TiS's attitude to science education. The "Scientific Point of View" (which is hardly a point of view - on this question it's fact) is crucial to whether TiS are subverting science or not. Swangyy 10:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that someone can have malevolent intentions without intending to be malevolent? You're right, I am unable to grasp that concept. As I've repeatedly said, I have no problem citing scientists' criticisms of TiS's actions and goals. What I have a problem with is a section heading making an undocumented assertion about TiS's intent. What it amounts to is a projection of your dislike of TiS.

I have offered many alternative approaches to documenting criticisms of TiS, yet you still insist upon taking the shortcut of using a biased section heading. I don't see any reason to continue arguing this with you. If we can't come to an agreement, we should elevate this to a RfC. Eseymour 13:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Blind designer's addition of the Robert Boston quote is fine from a NPOV perspective. It is not specifically about TiS, so I question the relevance to this article. But there's a lot of other general argumentation about ID in this article, and I'll leave that to other editors to clean up. Regards, Eseymour 13:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Would both sides agree that "redirect" is a more neutral term than "subvert" or the weasel-wordish "influence"?

No - both "redirect" and "influence" are inadequate descriptions of TiS. Both fail to point out that TiS policies will damage science education.

Swangyy 10:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to any particular verb. "Change," "alter," shape," etc. The belief that TiS policies will damage science education can be documented in the text of the section, rather than asserted in the heading. I'd also agree with changing the heading to something like "Activities considered harmful to science education." But I will not agree to allow this article to demonize its subject. Eseymour 13:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Summary: it's ok.

• The above comment by the instigator of the discussion, "No - both "redirect" and "influence" are inadequate descriptions of TiS. Both fail to point out that TiS policies will damage science education", is spot on. Subvert is an excellent word to show this, but it's just semantics, really. What about deteriorate, damage, etc.? Subvert is good enough. At the very least, it encourages the reader to read the section further.
• This whole article is just a pile of quotes from people who don't like the organization put in different sections. I placed a Quotefarm template on it.

--User:Krator (t c) 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I've changed the header to what I believe should be a good compromise. It reflects the scientific consensus that TiS' policies are harmful to sci ed, but does not attempt to divine TiS' "true intentions." Eseymour 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Members of TiS

Richard Buggs is still listed in this article as a member of the Truth in Science board. His name has been removed from their website, so I suggest it also be removed here.

There may also be other changes, I haven't checked in detail.

- Chris Preedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.173.100 (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Done (and please post new sections at the bottom of the talkpage). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevancy

The section entitled "Criticism of Truth in Science and/or intelligent design" is more properly the province of the "Intelligent Design" article as and should be replaced with a sentence or two and a cross-reference to that article where the content of the section should be included. Otherwise it is an excuse for a trirade against a point of view with which the authors don't agree. 221.121.65.132 (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No. TiS distributes literature published by the ID movement, and advocates some of its ideas (though the 'basic types' subsection appears to be more closely related to Baraminology). A brief discussion of the criticism of their ideas would seem to be appropriate for putting TiS into context, per WP:DUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to put TiS into context then why not include the Culture Wars while you're at it! Surely the bounds of an article have to be circumscribed else it become unencyclopedic. Jgk168421 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The 'culture wars' is a term for a US conflict, and is not particularly relevant to providing context for a UK organisation. The degree of scientific legitimacy of the 'scientific truth' they are purporting to peddle most certainly is relevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs a severe editorial cleanup. The summary at the top says too much and the flow from one section to another is often non-existent, and the layout is confusing and inconsistent. The contents of many of the sections should be rewritten to a higher standard. Jgk168421 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)