Talk:David Berlinski

Intelligent design section

• In this section, as I write this, it says, "The scientific community, however, regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]" The cite provided just links to a list of articles Berlinksi himself wrote - hardly the kind of articles likely to disprove his own theories. I proposes deleting this line, or changing it to cite needed. Anyone dis/agree? LAEsquire (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC) LAEsquire
  • Incorrect: this statement is referenced to a National Science Teachers Association Press Release. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove the ID section until it explains Berlinski's views The article's Intelligent Design section needs to explain Berlinski's views. Such explanations need to be accurate, with substantial quotes, and presented in a standard somewhat sympathetic editorial style. As of 5/17/08, the section lacks this information and style. Instead, the section apparently documents the authors' own views. Remove this ID section until corrected. --Hailclan (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No. His opposition to evolution and his involvement with ID are what Berlinski is principally known for, and is reliably sourced. To date these "views" have appeared to be fairly undifferentiated reworkings of pre-existing creationist anti-evolution arguments. If you can provide WP:RS info on what these exact views are, and how they might vary from these stock arguments, then by all means add them to the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the ID section should be removed because a primary Wikipedia purpose is to educate readers on the subject's views (no matter how objectionable the subject's views might be to the writer). For example, I came to Wikipedia to learn Berlinski's views on creation/evolution but found only undocumented summaries by writers who, apparently, want to argue against his views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailclan (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That argument is incoherent -- if it is "a primary Wikipedia purpose is to educate readers on the subject's views", it would follow that we should add WP:RS information on those views, not that we should delete other WP:RS relating to the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fix or Delete" has long been a coherent principle and an everyday action in writing and editing. The obvious preferred action is to fix the item. But writers routinely delete material when, for example, they don't know the correct information in time for publication. If they do publish, then they may mislead their audience and will undermine their creditability. Hailclan (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fix or delete" implies that the current material is in some way erroneous -- which WP:RSs supporting it clearly refutes. The only 'problem' you have raised is one of omission, which by its nature cannot be mitigated by a deletion. This whole line of argument is specious, and unless you can find a completely new one, I see no reason to delete this section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The omissions are substantial - the quantity and relevance of Berlinski quotes is meager. Yet the writers' provide ample criticism of those meager Berlinski quotes, and of their other undocumented understandings of Berlinski's views. I learned a little about Berlinski's ID views but had to sort through a lot about others' anti-ID views - these editorial omissions and commissions are not incoherent or specious problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailclan (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the problem is that Berlinski has said little that has evoked any serious response, most probably because (1) he lacks any qualification remotely relevant to evolutionary biology and (2) the claims he makes aren't sufficiently original to demand an independent response. "Ample criticism" is warranted per WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific position that his claims are meritless. We will go with what we have, unless and until something more substantial comes along. You have provided no logically-coherent argument for deletion of WP:V material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading this discussion page is extraordinary. It is obvious that the author of the article prefers to quote those who disagree with Berlinski more than doctor Berlinski himself! LOL. Many people have suggested this and yet the article remains unbalanced. I'm NOT a fan of David Berlinski, but the lack of balance in this article caused me to sign up immediately to offer my comments. I shouldn't have been surprised to find the entire discussion board filled with similar reasonable objections to the over emphasis on D. B's detractors. This article is a sad example of scholarship (or lack of). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graburns (talk • contribs) 11:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Confusing statement. How can someone be a "leading critic of evolution within the intelligent design movement"? If he was in the intelligent design movement he would already be a critic of evolution, therefore it is a double negative to say that he was a critic of evolution in the intelligent design movement, implying that he is actually a leading critic of evolution being criticized by the intelligent design movement, and not a critic of evolution. Apteva (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: an encyclopedia or an opinion forum?

Isn't it logical when writing an article on someone that you would quote their views objectively rather than subjectively? eg: Berlsinski's viewpoint has been described as... and the article gives a sizable paragraph begining with terms like "wrong headed" and "radical". Also it would seem to make much more sense to actually quote Dr Berlinski himself and then his critics. That way the reader could form their own judgement on whether or not he is "wrong headed" or "radical". He is what he is. Is wikipedia an encyclopedia or an opinion forum?? Surely you can find a quote from this guy and then follow it up with the corresponding criticism. Or does the author fear free thinking readers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graburns (talk • contribs) 11:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Graburns. You noticed a problem of scholarly writing did you? Please feel free as per WP:BRD to make improvements to this article. They are much needed! Thanks, DannyMuse (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto here. This entry is a disgrace to the Wikipedia community. It also shows the militant Darwinist militia for what they really are.Flange the Flee (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than ranting it would help out if you could point out specific issues you have with the article. Keep in mind that Wikipedia has an undue weight policy and that Berlinski's views are an extreme minority. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Berlinski and his views may be a minority, but--at the risk of stating the obvious--this page IS about him. With that perspective in mind, it seems clear that having such a large percentage of this article's content devoted to refuting his view is actually a violation of the WP undue weight policy. - DannyMuse (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, are we talking about the same page? The one that has about 15% devoted to what critics say? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Josh, yes we are talking about the same article. Not sure how you came up with the 15% figure, but I was referring to the principles in concering Criticism and praise in WP:BLP. It says:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability ..., and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints .... Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

No specific percentage was mentioned, just principles to apply, specifically write in a way that "does not appear to take sides" and is "in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." This article, IMHO, clearly does not have that. - DannyMuse (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

An article that begins by calling the subject a "crank" is not an objective article. It's irrelevant whether he stated that about himself or not. (In fact, I'm planning to remove that line, since the only citation is from Slate, which does not quote Berlinski, but simply states this as a fact.)Flange the Flee (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Slate is a reliable source. Moreover, there are many other possible sources for Berlinski saying just that. See for example here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Actually, Josh, in the article at the link you provided, Berlinski doesn't exactly call himself a crank, but agrees that when others accuse him of being a crank it is true. Splitting hairs perhaps, but let's be clear. Also, in this article Berlinski makes the distinction between an individual (himself) being a "crank" and someone else (the target of his vitriolic writings) practicing "crank science". He then refers to a comment by physicist Jeremy Bernstein. But none of that really matters because, while it is interesting, none of it is terribly encyclopedic in content or tone. Indeed, that style of writing is more typical of tabloid journalism. Hopefully that makes perfect sense. -- DannyMuse (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The comparison to a tabloid is quite befitting at this point.My suggestion is that the criticism belongs in a section labelled just that: Criticism. As is done in many other biographies.Flange the Flee (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the guy who said "Look, it’s one thing to say that someone like me is a crank. That’s fine because it’s true." Moreover, the DI calls Berlinski a crank in one of their promotional statements about Berlinksi. Calling himself a crank isn't criticism and given that we are talking about his own description, putting it in as criticism is imposing the POV that "crank" is a negative term among other problems. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sourcing

Per WP:RS, I have removed two blogs used as sources for quotes from Larry Moran and PZ Myers. I have NOT removed the related text, although it is now unsourced. I looked and could not find another source for these quotes. Does anyone else interested in this article know of suitable, reliable sources? DannyMuse (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, as ATren pointed out above, "As for the blogs, WP:BLP explicitly states that blogs are not acceptable sources on a BLP unless it is self-published. So Moran and Myers' blogs are not appropriate sources here. Furthermore, BLP states that even self-published material is not appropriate if it is contentious." Additionally, as Ronbo76 explained, "blogs (especially self-posted ones) are not considered authorative sources as its editor can change them at will. Please see WP:EL and Wikipedia:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources. - DannyMuse (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree in this case. Part of the issue seems to be that the word "blog" isn't well-defined. In this case we aren't talking about a "blog" in the sense of a random individual who has a self-published website but rather talking about a statement by a well-known biologist. The general problems of blogs do not apply in such cases. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "blog" is really irrelevant. What matters is that it is self-published. Although the Wikipedia:Attribution policy does allow for the exception that a self-published source may be used when a "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise" has produced it, it is with the proviso that "these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications." However, none of that matters, because as that same paragraph continues:

Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. (Emphasis in original)

So the Myers and Moran blogs are out. Even if they fit under the exception clause, which they don't because this is a biography of a living person, then these same comments would have to also have been "published by reliable, third-party publications." So find those publications. - DannyMuse (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored them. They were not being used as third-party sources about Berlinski, Danny. They are being used as primary source for *what their authors say*; the view's of Moran and Myers, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. And Seed Magazine's Scienceblogs are not the same as self-published blogs at Blogger, etc, BTW. They are published by Seed Magazine, a notable popular science publication and the authors are carefully selected by Seed for their notable work in their fields. Odd nature (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd nature:

1. As I'm sure you know, Wikipolicies overlap and are sometimes in contradiction. In this instance I believe that the guideline that "Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP" clearly applies and outweighs Wikipedia:Verifiability for the reasons contained in the guideline. I noticed you did not address those specific points.
2. Why would you want to use these references, they are really un-encyclopedic and un-scientific. Moran calls Berlinksi an IDiot then says, "cows didn't evolve into whales." Duh, Berlinksi doesn't believe that. He was using an illustration!
3. If the points that are referenced in the article are published in Seed magazine then use THAT source. This would be better and would be in keeping with WP policies and guidelines and would generally improve the quality of this article. DannyMuse (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly in that context. Myers is a "a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise". Myers is talking about biology (well, basic population genetics, but same end result). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Josh, Myers is "well-known ..." but you're apparently forgetting/ignoring the policy guideline, "Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. (Bold Emphasis in original, Italicized added.) - DannyMuse (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Blogs as Sources in BLP's

Outside editors are kindly invited to post their comments in this section. Please leave this section for outside input ONLY, per RfC instructions. Thank you.

Under what circumstances are blogs acceptable as Reliable Sources in Biographies of Living Persons's? What WikiPolicies apply? Reference current Talk Page for recent discussion.

• In the case of this usage, the blogs are perfectly good sources from which to source claims made by Moran & Myers. Regarding Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources, I have a few important notes:
  1. Moran & Myers are readily considered "established expert" in the "relevant fields" of evolutionary biology, intelligent design, and the creation-evolution battles; use of their self-published works is not prohibited.
  2. Not all blogs are created equal: Pharyngula is easily understood to meet the spirit if not the exact letter of WP:RS. That any claims sourced to his blog should be clearly attributed to Myers and Myers alone is also self-evident.
  3. The section regarding Berlinski's vacuous interpretation of cetacean evolution may not be necessary, as there's plenty of scathing criticism from which to make a well-rounded "the scientific establishment considers his ID work to be buffoonery" section. Consider whether that single incidnet is receiving undue coverage. — Scientizzle 23:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure yet. Per policy, WP:BLP blogs are not acceptable sources in BLP articles. However... An exception is made for some newspaper blogs where contributions are made by staff writers under full editorial control. A clear-cut example is Nick Robinson's "newslog" on the BBC website[1], where the initial piece by Robinson starts off a chain of comments by individuals. So the question to be decided here is whether the scientists contributing to these blogs are doing so as staff writers, and whether the blogs are outlets of mainstream news media in the same way as the BBC blog. It needs a close examination of exactly how these blogs operate. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The blogs are cited to provide the exact source of quotes that directly refute claims made by Berlinski; they are not cited as sources for any biographical details about Berlinski. This ameliorates some BLP concerns, which focus on poor sourcing of actionable biographical statements. Furthermore, while Moran's blog is more debatable regarding its inclusion (as he's less notable and its publication on Blogspot is certainly more of the personal variety), Myers is published on ScienceBlogs, a venture of Seed Media Group (Seed Magazine); while the content is decidedly his, it's not unreasonable to think of Pharyngula as similar to a columnist's blog on a news service. — Scientizzle 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Opposed to these sources. They are clearly in violation of WP:BLP and none of the exceptions override the facts. Additionally, the source itself has some obvious bias issues and isn't a very encyclopedic reference. CorpITGuy (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose There is no doubt that the authors are the relevant experts they represent themselves as, but that is not enough to override the sensible prohibition against using self published sources in BLPs. The article already establishes that Berlinski is an Intelligent Design Creationist, which provides the context for how biologists regard his ideas. Per WP:ASF, we should just counterpoint with properly weighted mentions of where Berlinski diverges from the scientific community. Also, those of Berlinski's ideas which have received explicit notice outside the IDC community should be considered more prominent and be treated in more depth. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I believe another exception to using a blog in a BLP is only if the author is the subject of the article. In other words it is ok to use a blog to quote David Berlinski if it appears in a blog, but only in this article. It is true that many newspapers tack on a blog to their stories to allow reader input. Only the story can be used, not the reader comments. Apteva (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments & Responses by Editors Previously Involved in Blog/RS Dispute

In response to comment by Scientizzle 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC):

Minor note: Moran is possibly more notable than PZ as a biologist. I do agree that the other issues do make sourcing with Moran more problematic. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to comment by CorpITGuy (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC):

Hang on, so relevant experts in a field saying someone outside the field is wrong is now evidence of bias? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Danny is insisting we do this in an overly formal fashion (that is rarely followed with the good reason that it generally makes discussion harder rather than easier), I suppose I'll add my other thoughts into this section here as well: Scientizzle's concern about undue weight may be serious enough to remove this regardless of whether or not there is a BLP issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Josh, I agree with you affirmation of Scientizzle's concern about undue weight. How would you suggest the section in question be modified? - DannyMuse (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. Removal might make the most sense. (To be clear this is independent of any BLP claim). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm for that: removal. But I suggest we wait a day or two and see who else weighs in on the matter, shall we? - DannyMuse (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I am very concerned as to the slanted/biased tone of this article. Introducing a competent educator/mathematician/writer as a "crank" does not help to promote Wikipedia as a source of objective information. Are there others who share my concerns? Flange the Flee (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

FtF, Thanks for commenting. There are in fact many that share your view. However, in my experience I have found that there are also a number of editors associated with this article that greet any such attempts at re-writing with what I can only call fierce opposition. I personally like WP:BRD, but you might be more successful with suggesting re-writes here on the Talk Page and trying to build consensus. - DannyMuse (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Berlinski describes himself as a crank. As to the claim that he is a mathematician, his research publication list seems to be a bit small. Again, it is more helpful to give specific examples of issues you think need working, not make vague general accusations (and frankly Danny, the same remark applies to your comment). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Josh, the link you presented regarding Berlinski's research requires a password. So unless you supply the necessary User ID and Password it's essentially a useless link. - DannyMuse (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, using university access. I can summarize the data for you. Mathscinet is the collected reviews of pretty much all mathematical papers and math books in English and a fair number in other laguages. Berlinski has a total of 5 entries. Two of which are mathematical history books (and not very favorably reviewed. Both reviews note mistakes in Berlinski work and one of them criticizes him for his almost complete reliance on secondary sources for his book about Newton). Of the remainder, two are not reviewed beyond basic bibliographic detail. The last appears in a multidisciplinary phil sci journal and the reviewer comments that "This paper is written like a literary paper". So we have in the best counting 3 papers by Berlinski. That hardly makes him a mathematician. (I originally looked this up a while ago when an anon asked for evidence that Berlinski was a mathematician. I was actually trying to keep the category in and had expected to find a host of papers to be able to throw down in defense of the category. I was disappointed). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Have you written your own CV yet? - DannyMuse (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Berlinski's is much more impressive than mine. However, with only a very narrow range of successful research I'm not making any claims to being a mathematician. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely define which evolutionary theory is being discussed.

The article needs to define "Darwinian evolutionary theory" versus the various "intelligent design" positions. If people don't know the terms, they can't understand the main issue of the "intelligent design" versus "no intelligent design" evolutionary controversy.

The main competing evolutionary theory models would be Darwinian evolution (no intelligent designer - life arose spontaneously) versus various models which allow for the possibility of an intelligent designer. These other evolutionary theories vary ranging from a model almost identical to "Darwinian" except that they see a designer, through other variants with some evolutionary theories allowing only limited change.

Dr. Berlinski, and many others in the "intelligent design" group have a problem with "Darwinian evolutionary theory". Dr. Berlinski, while agnostic, does not want the door shut on the possibility of a designer.

The term "Darwinian Evolution" is a common term and is referenced by many as a minimal Google search would show.

Note that a dictionary definition of evolution does not tell you enough about the issues of "designer" versus "no designer": EVOLUTION"...a developmental process in which an organ or organism becomes more and more complex by differentiation of its parts; a continuous and progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Darwin's+theory+of+evolution)71.155.241.119 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that "Darwinian evolution" means "no intelligent designer - life arose spontaneously". Darwin never ruled out a Creator, and his opinion on the origin of life was that it was unknowable as far as the science of his day could tell. Of course his "Creator" was viewed as setting laws which produced the designed results, rather than breaking His laws with repeated miracles, and was in line with the theological concepts of many in the Church of England, including his Cambridge tutors and leading scientist such as Herschel. The divide isn't between "designer" versus "no designer": EVOLUTION", it's between theistic evolution and the various mutations of the anti-evolution movement begun by fundamentalists in the 1920s. . dave souza, talk 19:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I use the term "darwinian evolution" as it seems to be used by many today to describe an evolution where life arose from nonlife with no outside designer or "god". This term figures prominently in some of the articles on the subject.

And the persons in the "intelligent design" movement vary widely in their personal religious (or agnostic) beliefs so "fundamentalist" or "creationist" do not even describe many of them--including the agnostic jew Dr. Berlinski.

For instance: Dr. Richard Dawkins and Dr. Michael Behe apparently believe in a similar evolutionary model (as far as I can tell) except that they differ vastly on the design issue. Dr. Behe would differ from some of his colleagues who might allow for intelligent design (like agnostic but open questioner Dr. Berlinski) but who would not share his Catholic beliefs. And he would probably be closer to Dr. Dawkins on holding to evolution over time but would differ from some fellow Catholics, others who might see a much younger earth (Dr. Nelson of Biola University) with much more limited change (as maybe within species only) but still a designer.

As to Darwin's religious beliefs-He apparently shifted from Christianity to a kind of agnosticism. "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." -- Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, cited in Peter's Quotations, by Lawrence J Peter (1977), p. 45, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996) Cited from this www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/darwin.htm (They have other quotes where Darwin seems to more vigorously doubt the existence of God.)

As to a Creator "breaking His laws" I merely add my comment on the English language limitation of the word "law"; that the word "law" in the natural world might be better called "usual pattern of behavior" to distinguish from the Creator's "moral laws".71.155.241.119 (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Blog-sourced criticism about whales and cows.

The section about whales and cows is inappropriate. The sources are two very critical blogs, and this is a BLP, therefore I've removed the entire section. ATren (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)