Category talk:Denialism

message: "keep after marginal no consensus bordering on keep"-- I'm not entirely sure what this means. Revolutionaryluddite 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the vote was 15/24 verses 9/24 in favor of 'keep', that is 62.5% to 37.5%. It's a clear majority, but it's not a consensus. Revolutionaryluddite 17:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That means there was no clear consensus to delete. Cats and articles are only deleted if the consensus is clearly in favour of deletion. ornis (t) 21:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and the vote was about evenly split. Revolutionaryluddite 23:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies if my closing remarks have confused anyone. I did not see a clear consensus to keep, but it was close to consensus. There certainly was no consensus to delete. Perhaps I should just have gone for "keep" or "no consensus, so keep". Anyway, it is still here and I stand by that conclusion from the discussion. --Bduke 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's called 'no consensus'. Sour grapes? FeloniousMonk 13:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (?) Revolutionaryluddite 20:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: FM: I think RL was merely agreeing with you and not arguing with you — hence his confusion. (I'll agree there was some ambiguity in his statement, however. If you assume he's agreeing with you, the statement can be inferred to agree with you. If you assume he's disagreeing with you, the statement can be inferred to disagree with you.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we all agree, then why are we arguing? Revolutionaryluddite 21:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because I'm not the only one with these flaws. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The category is still here because... 

message: Alright how does this sound to every one. We create two new sub cats: "evolution denial" and "atrocity denial".
* :Category:Atrocity denial would cover things like japan's whitewash of IJA atrocities during WWII and the sino-japanese war, denail of the armenian genocide and denial of pol pot's atrocities.
* :Category:Evolution denial, would be reserved for overtly anti-science varieties of creationism and their various supporting campaigns, so in this case Revolutionaryluddite 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good idea, although I think a three subcategory split with 'war crimes denial', 'genocide denial', and 'evolution denial' would be better. Also, the term 'evolution denial' seems overly general-- almost no creationists deny that natural selection occurs, they just dispute that one order could have evolved from another-- and POV worded. What about 'Darwinism denial' or 'macroevolution denial'? Revolutionaryluddite 23:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "'Darwinism denial' or 'macroevolution denial'?" No and double no, they're both creationist strawmen. Evolution denial can be sourced, those can't. Whatever specific aspect of evolution it is they choose to attack, be it speciation, unguided natural selection, or the very existence of a fossil record, it's all aimed at undermining evolution, and only works if you deny the evidence. ornis (t) 00:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not defending their beliefs, I'm just recognizing that ID-ers agree with evolution up to a point. They dispute some parts of the fossil record, but not most of it. They firmly agree the scientific consensus with natural selection, the age of the earth, and the existence of fossilized animals, but they, in general, disagree with common descent for humans. Again, evolution and creationism are not binary opposites like 'night and day' or 'black and white'-- more like liberalism verses conservatism. Anyways, if the subcategory 'evolution denial' will only include those who deny all/most of the theory-- flood geology, young earth creationism, and so on-- than its name makes sense. If the subcategory will include Michael Behe and everything associated with Intelligent Design, then it should be renamed to reflect exactly what it is being 'denied'. In any rate, I think that 'Atrocity Denial' and 'Science Denial' would be a better idea. Revolutionaryluddite 00:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not about truth it's about verifiability. I think you'll find the false dichotomy is something you've added —I guess that's an artefact of theism— I've never argued that evo-cre is a binary distinction, but that a common element to most forms of creationism, is a denial of one or more aspects of evolution, and the evidence that supports that aspect. YES even ID, in fact ID is practically the poster-child of modern anti-evolution denialism. Behe is still using argument that where debunked ten years ago, he simply ignores the evidence, a fact he admitted to in court. ornis (t) 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia is not about truth it's about verifiability." Verifiability is going to extrodinarily difficult given that 'denialism' is a neologism and that use of the term in this case is limited to passionate evolution advocates such as Michael Shermer that apply the term to anyone that disagrees with them. In any rate, denial does not mean disagreement. The 'denier' label applies to those denying historical or scientific truths. Is someone an 'evolution denier' if they agree with most of the theory with the exception but disagree regarding what they see as 'gaps'? Suppose they only believe in one gap: That the chemical building blocks of life-- amino acids, etc-- could have not been created and preserved on their own. That the first eukaryotic cell could not evolved naturally due it its complexity. Or that the sense of self-awareness possessed by homo sapiens is too unique to have come from natural selection. Is that one gap enough? How small does the disagreement with Darwinian evolution have to be before that person is no longer a 'denier'? Revolutionaryluddite 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "evolution advocates such as Michael Shermer that apply the term to anyone that disagrees with them"? What rubbish. If that's what you think, then I suggest in all seriousness, that you go back and look at his arguments. He arrives at the term, by drawing legitimate comparisons in their goals and methods. And quite frankly, theists can stick their god in whatever gaps they like, but it only becomes denialism, when they then declare those gaps filled forever more and un-close-able by science. This is what ID does and they use the same methods that holocaust deniers employ, the only reason they're resorting to smaller and smaller gaps, is because in spite of their best efforts, real scientists are closing those gaps. ornis (t) 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "drawing legitimate comparisons in their goals and methods": I've previously noted the simiarity between the tacticts and methodology of certian ID-ers with holocaust deniers; though their goals are entirely different. "theists can stick their god in whatever gaps they like, but it only becomes denialism, when they then declare those gaps filled forever more and un-close-able by science": This is true applied to some ID-ers, but it's a strawman when applied to ID as a belief now. You note that "the only reason they're resorting to smaller and smaller gaps, is because in spite of their best efforts, real scientists are closing those gaps": You seem to be implying that many ID-ers are honest, rational people who are persuaded by scientific evidence and have enough of an open mind to abandon their beliefs. Look, I'm not defending ID or the people that believe it. They are wrong. But they are not entirely wrong given that they agree with 'most' of strict non-theistic evolution where theistic evolutionists such as myself would agree with 'nearly all' and young earth creationists would agree with 'some' or 'none'. I still don't understand what you think: How much disagreement must there be before it becomes 'denial'? Yes, Behe's complexity arguements have been debunked, but that is his only major conflict with evolution-- he entirely agrees with common descent and so on. Where do you draw the line? Revolutionaryluddite 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, I'm okay with having a subcategory 'Evolution Denial'; I just don't think that Behe and ID-as-an-ideology should be inside it. Teach the Controversy is far more debatable; it's a tactic and one that correlates with 'denialism' as defined by the main article. Revolutionaryluddite 02:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Category:Evolution denial seems fairly narrow. How about :Category:Science denial? That would include articles such as Climate change denial and any article about tobacco and cancer denial as well. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Having two subcategories 'Atrocity Denial' and 'Science Denial' seems like the best idea. Revolutionaryluddite 00:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Science denial is needlessly broad, and in any case there's already a subcat for environmental skepticism. ornis (t) 00:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah... no, you seem to have ignored everything that I've said so far... Darwinism and darwinian are just creationist  strawmen, caricatures of evolution they set up to knock down for the edification of their true-believers. And there's already a category for climate change denial. Atrocity denial, obviously I have no problem with. ornis (t) 01:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you prefer the general term 'Evolution Denial' to the precise term 'Darwinian Evolution Denial', that's fine. The point I'm trying to make is that  the vast majority of people disagree with strict non-theistic evolution and that a broadly titled subcategory would be less helpful than a specifically titled subcategory that only describes disagreement with all/most of strict non-theistic evolution, which would be 'denial', and does not describe disagreement with some/part of strict non-theistic evolution. I prefer the term 'Darwinian Evolution Denial' because it's more accurate. This is not nitpicking, but it's close. If you think that it should titled 'Evolution Denial', I can go along with that. Revolutionaryluddite 01:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Even an orthodox catholic christian like miller, works on the assumption of m-naturalism, though in his private life he would reject p-naturalism. Conflating the two is a political-creationist tactic, done largely to set up a false choice dilemma, viz Evolution or god. ornis (t) 01:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know there's a significant differance between them, but we're talking about categories of people. Many ID-ers sincrely believe that they are following m-naturalism even though they are not, and many p-naturalists believe that they are merely applying scientific skepticism to ordinary life. Naturalism (philosophy) states that "observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes" under this belief, but Behe and several other ID-ers sincerely believe that they're abiding by this. Look at his book "Darwin's Black Box". Anyway, like I said, I would fine with a subcategory 'Evolution Denial' so long as it's contents were determined on a case-by-case basis. Revolutionaryluddite 02:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well (citing Kitzmiller again), behe admitted that in order for ID to be science, science would have to be redefined in such a way as to not require methodological naturalism. ornis (t) 03:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd also contend that the term Darwinism is not actually more precise, since that's not what the modern theory is called, and the term has in any case been poisoned by association with eugenics. ornis (t) 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point about the term 'Darwinism' having negative connotations due to its associations with Social Darwinism. Bringing that up was not my intent. Revolutionaryluddite 02:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that wasn't your intent, I brought that up as a addendum to my comment about darwinism being a strawman. ornis (t) 03:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that (various forms of) Creationism is denial of a wide range of science. In its most extreme form, Young Earth Creationism, it involves denial of, among other things, geology (through Flood Geology), nuclear physics (as this underlies geochronology and science's estimate of the age of fossils rocks & the Earth) and astrophysics (age of astronomic bodies & the universe). I would suggest 'Creationist denial of science' as a title more reflective of this diverse disagreement. Hrafn42 02:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review Category_talk:Denialism#Creationism. The broad term 'creationist' applies to everything from Young Earth Creationism to theistic evolution and more. ConfuciusOrnis' compromise makes a lot more sense. Revolutionaryluddite 02:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL... back to square one eh? Never mind. I'm of the opinion, that while, yes they do attack a great many fields, the key target of those attacks is evolution. ornis (t) 03:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've already made it a subcat of this cat. ornis (t) 02:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems quite problematic as the denialism article goes to great lengths to distinguish itself from mere skepticism. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably be reworded to 'Evironmental Science Denial' or something like that. Revolutionaryluddite 21:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't see a need or a benefit of this proposal. Is this category over-populated?  FeloniousMonk 13:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FM raises an excellent question. Why do we even need subcats at this point? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I initally wanted to have subcategories is because I thought that there should be a section called 'atrocity denial' or something like that which would include denial of 'acts of genocide' and denial of 'attempted genocide'. A 'no subcategory' policy would be fine with me. I realize that I'm completely alone in believing some kinds of Intelligent Design is not 'denial' like holocaust denial. Revolutionaryluddite 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make sure we're clear. When most people say Intelligent Design is 'denial' like holocaust denial is 'denial', they're saying it (I hope) in the sense that an elephant is a mammal like a mouse is a mammal. I.e., it merely means they have certain characteristics in common and not that they are in any way equivalent. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights"- a Council of Europe statement referred to by the article Denialism.  Personally, I think that things like, say, the prolific use of CCTV Cameras in public places should be considered a violation of human rights. I know I'm sounding very POV here, but I think that the council's near-unanimous claims are almost Orwellian in their logic. Revolutionaryluddite 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No disagreement here. I think creationism is damaging to our nation's education system, but I cannot make the jump (in good conscience) to human rights. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a personal opinion. The source is notable and reliable. Unless you've got another source that outweighs the one provided, don't waste our time and yours with personal opinions here. Odd nature 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd nature, I've given up trying to debate this with you so I'm disengaging. Revolutionaryluddite 01:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion