Talk:Wedge strategy

Large deletions by joshuaschroeder

Large deletions should be discussed before effectuated. It is a fundraising letter that was intended for supporters. It can be misconstrued out of context. What I added was a factual statement about what the DI says about the context of the original document and about false allegations made. What the Discovery Institute says about it, and about the allegations made by others, is very relevant and important for balancing this article. There should be consensus before such massive deletions. --VorpalBlade 01:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This wasn't a large deletion, and even so removal of irrelevent or inconsequential material does not need to be discussed beforehand. We can talk about your grievances on the talkpage and I am certainly hopeful that we will come up with a solution that is a good NPOV presentation of the material. Joshuaschroeder 01:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So why do you think it is irrelevant? As noted above, I think it is. If you think I made what they said sound like fact, then we can make changes to make clear that it is their explanation. You can also add what others say about it, like B. Forrest, I think?--VorpalBlade 02:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think much of it was irrelevant because many of the quotes seemed to be fighting against an argument that wasn't made in the article. I will consider your new additions. Joshuaschroeder 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adding the heading is a good solution. I left out some of the text you deleted, but adding a little more is appropriate in explaining the strategy.

One of the main problems I have with this is the the Wedge Strategy doc is not the best place to find out what the strategy is. That was a fundraising letter, but the best exposition was Johnson's book with the same name. That book explained it for all readers. The fundraising doc. assumes that the target audience is sympathetic and understands the context, the means, etc.--VorpalBlade 02:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with you here. The assumption of the target audience needs to be mentioned (as we try to in the introduction), but just because the target audience isn't vetted for public consumption doesn't mean that it isn't a good source for finding out what the strategy is. To claim this would be akin to claiming that it would be better to find out about any company or country's policy from publications that they design to be released to the public rather than through internal memoranda. Joshuaschroeder 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The main point of the strategy as Johnson lays it out is to stop the inappropriate domination of science by the a priori philosophy of naturalism. This doesn't come out in the article. This article is really about the Wedge Strategy document, not really about the strategy. --VorpalBlade 02:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it does. The philosophy of naturalism and its association with secularism seems very clear to me. Joshuaschroeder 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Attempted reincorporation

Many of the quotes used that go on in length about the magnamity of the Discovery Institute with respect to not wanting to impose ideas are a bit of a stretch from a NPOV sense. We should stick to consistent arguments that are made rather than ones that require detailed explanation. I'm not sure how one can NPOV formulate the claim that the Discovery Institute opposes the imposition of any a priori assumption while only supporting ID projects. Joshuaschroeder 04:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the above contains absolutely nothing but vague personal opinion. please identify policy justifications for your edit. thank you. Ungtss 04:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not a personal opinion that the Discovery Institute sponsors only ID scientists. Joshuaschroeder 06:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not personal opinion that princeton sponsors only evolutionary scientists, either. what relevence? reverting until you provide a justification for your gutting. Ungtss 12:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current article contains about 33 lines that for the most part selectively quote from one DI document. The explanation contains 17 lines that explains the larger context and explains the DI's position with respect to the way that doc. has been interpreted. I don't see how that is unreasonable. I cut down the explanation section somewhat in response to your objection. I think the first 33 lines give way more time than this one document deserves, but I have not deleted any of this section (just edits for accuracy). I don't think you should take out more of the last section before reaching a consensus here, so we do not end up in an edit war.

By the way, I appreciate Joshua's changes to the intro to make the context clearer, and your header for organization is good. I think the article needs a good neutral summary of how Johnson explains the Wedge in his book. --VorpalBlade 14:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for this, Vorpal. We should be explicit though that it is Johnson's take on the matter we are trying to describe and we should also be clear that his agenda as one of the "founding fathers" of the ID movement is apparent. I don't think it is relevant to count lines in the article. NPOV does not mean equal time is necessary. You may feel that there are irrelevant statements -- if so, remove them or rework them. As it stands, Ungtss is simply knee-jerk reverting rather than trying to work here. I welcome the opportunity to work with you, VorpalBlade. Joshuaschroeder 14:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As usual, the above contains nothing but personal opinion. you are deleting attributed and relevent material without justification. justify your deletion. Ungtss 14:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Justified edit

Here is the version that Ungtss likes (version a):

"...It lists examples of activities that directly contradict many of the allegations, including sponsoring a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation of church and state.

"It stated that, far from trying to impose its worldview on science, one of its main aims is to oppose the imposition of any a priori philosophy on the interpretive freedom of scientists. It "rejects all attempts to impose orthodoxies on the practice of science, and challenges "scientific materialism--the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone." It articulates a "strategy for influencing science and culture with our ideas through research, reasoned argument and open debate."[1]"

Here is my version (version b):

"The Wedge strategy is claimed to be an opposition to the dominant a priori philosophy and a support of the interpretive freedom of scientists. The goal of the strategy is described as "influencing science and culture with our ideas through research, reasoned argument and open debate".

"The defenders of the Discovery Institute point to examples of activities that directly contradict many of the allegations made with respect to the Wedge strategy, including sponsoring a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation of church and state."

Now, first of all, the pronoun is not well-determined in version a. What is the "it"? Is it the Discovery Institute? Wedge document: so what? What is it? To say that one of the major aims of either the Discovery Institute or the Wedge strategy is to oppose the imposition of any a priori philosophy is a bit misleading because DI sponsors solely ID researchers. It is important to point out that they oppose what they see as the dominant philosophy. More than this, the bit about the critique of scientific materialism is discussed above obliquely at least, but according to the wider goals of the Wedge strategy, it is only an oblique mention anyway. Johnson may talk more about scientific materialism in his book on the subject -- if so, that should be included in that bit there. But as it stands here, the mention of materialism above should suffice and it seems extremely redundant to reinclude it in the defense of the strategy. Other than that, everything else is included in a more stylized fashion, so Ungtss' objections mystify me once again. Joshuaschroeder 16:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts, Vorpalblade? Ungtss 20:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to read the above carefully, or look at all the changes, but here are some observations: 1. after a quick read, the current article doesn't look too bad to me- joshua seems to have left in a lot in the explanation; 2. he seems to be making an effort to improve the article overall, rather than just deleting whole chunks with no explanation like some others have done. I don't have time at the moment to look more carefully, but I hope to. I think Ungtss makes very good points and I have found him to be very reasonable and constructive on other pages. I don't think he is being knee jerk at all. I definitely agree more with Ungtss' comments, but need more time to look at the current details. --VorpalBlade 21:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Most of this is pretty biased, in my opinion. For example, the wedge document that is the basis for the whole thing is referenced on a man's website that is clearly against all that Discovery may be about, and, from what I've seen, largely misunderstanding them. This article does not generously provide counters to suspicion of ID and Discovery. I don't have the time go through it right now, but should someone else come across this, please provide your comments as well. I'll be back for more later.

--Swmeyer 01:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your vigorous denials of the obvious in your campaign to return all ID-related articles to the Discovery Institute-approved content continues apace.

The Discovery Institutes's Steven C. Meyer has confirmed the Wedge document. Phillip E. Johnson is explicit in his statements about the Wedge strategy.

This is all in the article, and well-cited with supporting links to credible sources. The article is NPOV and factual.

You may want to reconsider your own strategy here though; going to every ID-related article with an ideological ax to grind is not contributing to wikipedia's goal, which is compiling a complete and factual encyclopedia. FeloniousMonk 02:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Goal

Currently the article states in its lead section,

This religious goal, advanced chiefly by means of the wedge strategy, seeks to establish that life was created as the result of intelligent design.

The Wedge Document on the other hand states,

However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism.

and

The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds.

The ultimate goal of the Wedge Strategy, is therefore to replace science. It does not state what should replace science, but probably they are thinking of a form of scholasticism. Markus Schmaus 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)