Talk:Junkyard tornado

message: There is considerably scholarly criticism of the so-called naming of Hoyle's fallacy; the article simply assumes that there is indeed a fallacy on the strength of claims by atheistic evolutionist Dawkins, et al.  In fact, the christening of Hoyle's analogy is somewhat specious.  In the first place, a fallacy is a classification of a type of error in a categorical or other argument.  As such, fallacies are either material/informal or formal, relating to either ambiguity in content or error in structure.  All arguments rely on assumptions that are either true or false.  Statements themselves are not fallacies.  An error in a math puzzle, for exmaple, is not a fallacy: it is an error.  If little Tommy got his sum of 230 + 340 wrong, his wrong answer is not a fallacy, but simply a wrong answer.  The debate between Hoyle and others is a debate relating to a specific biological interpretation on a specified problem.  One may feel that Hoyle has made an error in his conclusion, or argue that he has committed a fallacy of analogy, but to christen an opponent's argument a fallacy on account of a disagreement with the conclusion as though it were somehow characteristic of a class of informal or formal errors may be seen to be intellectually mendacious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.84.90 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done some re-writing of the article to minimize POV. Chaparral2J (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article lacks objectivity 

message: There is no such thing as Hoyle's Fallacy.  It was a concept invented by Richard Dawkins and has not been accepted by mainstream philosophical discourse.  This article cites an unscholarly web article by Ian Musgave as evidence.  This article violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality and was written with the goal in mind of making a point.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylefoley76 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you only in the sense that Hoyle's Fallacy belongs in a broad category of post-hoc analysis.  Such things as sampling bias belong in this broad category.  There is no merit to the objection that it has "not been accepted by mainstream philosophical discourse."  This particular error is an error in reason and logic, and can be seen in many places throughout history.  It takes little effort to find bad reasoning which resurfaces over and over again. Steve (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although there are two issues. First, Hoyle's exact reasoning and motivations are essentially unknowable, and his conclusions may have been more plausible at the time they were made (so "fallacy" may be unfair). Second, it is true that creationists have used what is known as "Hoyle's fallacy" to claim that evolution ("by blind chance"—showing ignorance of natural selection) is impossible. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to go with "Fallacy" nevertheless, as Hoyle's reasoning may be unclear, but his error is easily considered objectively.  It is the sharpshooter's error in "post-hoc" analysis. 164.64.164.35 (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: this article violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research

message: In evolutionary biology, Hoyle's fallacy is a common misrepresentation of Darwinian theory, colloquially named, among evolutionary biologists, after the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, although it has been current almost since the time of Darwin himself
This does not flow well at all.  In fact I'm having a difficult time trying to determine what the original author even meant which is making it impossible to try and improve it.  I'll think about it some more and see if I can make it clearer.  Angry Christian (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: wow that sentence does not flow well

message: While I do find the subject of this article notable, I think the title is not appropriate. The article begins with Hoyle's fallacy is a term for the statistical analysis of Sir Fred Hoyle.[1]' The source that is provided does not mention the term 'Hoyle's fallacy' at all. The only person known to have called specifically Hoyle's argument a fallacy is Richard Dawkins, who alone represents neither the scientific community nor the general public. In fact, a google search for 'Hoyle's fallacy' results mostly in mirrors of this Wikipedia page and in forum posts using the term (probably copied from Wikipedia). A google scholar search give zero results. I get the idea that that the term is not commonly used. I propose to change the title of the article to 'Hoyle's Argument' or something with a similar meaning. 
I also find the article to have a non-neutral POV. Hoyle's statistical analysis itself is not explained. In fact, the article contains nothing but counter-arguments, omitting Hoyle's original analysis. I will try to improve the article as soon as I have done the required research to do so.Lindert (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Title not appropriate

message: You had no standing to remove the tag I placed. The whole article is a POV joke. ALL evolutionary biologists disagree with Hoyle? This is an extreme claim to make and is NOT sourced. If you remove the tag again I'm taking this to ArbCom. 68.80.183.171 (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please respond to the comments at #Ridiculous above. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Search for "all evolutionary biologists" in the 3rd ref (i.e. the one that sources the claim) and see what you find :-) --Michael C. Price talk 08:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not remove POV tag. 

message: The article presupposes that the "fallacy" is in fact a fallacy. This is a clear bias in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality rules.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucidology (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see #Ridiculous above and respond to the comments there. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: This article states "Hoyle's fallacy is rejected by all evolutionary biologists." which is flat out a lie. There are a great many biologists who dissent against the idea that random mutation leads to evolution. For instance:
“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of Evolution.” 
Pierre-Paul Grasse, - Evolutionist
“It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin’s theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted.” 
Prof. R. Goldschmidt, - PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. In Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press
"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully." - Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucidology (talk • contribs) 10:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:TALK so you can see how to sign your messages and how to reply to previous discussions (do not start a new section with each message). Are you aware that the quotes you just gave have no relevance to the statement about Hoyle's fallacy? Also, the article is talking about all current biologists (not those who died some decades ago, and not physicists), and the statement in the article has a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also read this article (2019) and it is not NPOV, clearly the people who run this article opinion is that of evolutionist and it shines through by appeal to majority? Who is this majority did you do a head count? And then bring that explanation which is supposed to refute the claim. but where is the balance from people like Meyers? --169.0.4.24 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: At WP:NPOV dispute we read "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag."
Accordingly, would anyone who believes the article conflicts with WP:NPOV please point to specific issues in the article, and explain why those issues conflict with content policies. The  tag should be removed if no justification for it is provided. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tagging 

message: The sources all seem to call it "Hoyle's Fallacy" not "Hoyle's fallacy".  I suggest we rename the article to reflect this. --Michael C. Price talk 08:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. Look here. It would behove us to follow some measure of consistency as it is our very goal to develop and maintain an encyclopaedia, and to capitalize "fallacy" for the article title would more than likely bring the whole thing crashing down. Please consider spitting on the sources in this case! (If I'm too late, then let me know.)—αrgumziωϝ 01:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are sources.  Hoyle's Fallacy is how it is referred to.  The Wikipedia decapitalisation policy is stupid - but at least it has enough sense to say that we should go with the sources where appropriate. --Michael C. Price talk 06:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice tautology. And it isn't a policy. Strict English standards could also be applied. But it is such an egregious fallacy that perhaps some feel entitled to capitalize on it. :-) What happens when we begin to find sources that don't care for the upper-case letter? Will we have to pick and choose which sources to follow, then? Whoa, slippery slope there (and not a fabricated one).—αrgumziΩϝ 16:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprise, surprise, if such sources exist then we will have use our judgement  shock horror gasp. And BTW capitalising Fallacy is not a violation of strict English. --Michael C. Price talk 18:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, why are you wasting time, then? Move the article to "Hoyle's Fallacy". I see that "Loki's Wager" (notice the upper-case W) hasn't been undermined (yet). Needless to say, "judgment" doesn't sound like a justification for anything. Thanks for the circularities, though. Oh, and before I forget, this might help you recognize your poor grasp of English. (The Devil's in the details.) I won't bother spelling it out for you, though. Best of luck!—αrgumziΩϝ 21:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand, but since you don't seem interested in correcting your ignorance, good luck to you. --Michael C. Price talk 00:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please. Inform me with your enlightened expertise. I'm willing to learn. But more importantly, I'm interested in improving the article. Are you?—αrgumziΩϝ 01:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's revision history answers your last question. --Michael C. Price talk 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That one was rhetorical. ;-) —αrgumziΩϝ 01:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation

message: In reference 3, Gatherer writes,Hoyle’s Fallacy is a surprisingly easy mistake to make when one has not quite grasped how powerful a force selection can be. The second sentence of the introductory paragraph presently reads, Hoyle’s fallacy is a surprisingly easy mistake to make when one has not quite grasped how powerful a force natural selection can be.Such editorializing does not belong in the introduction, and it's revealing that someone should plagiarize to put it there. ThomHImself (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And if we don't cite verbatim it will be denounced as unsourced original research. --cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting plagiarized sentence 

message: For goodness sake, do you ever stop to think that this guy wasn't necessarily being quite so literal when he used the rather abstract allusion of the tornado and the aeroplane? --86.153.35.156 (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a good point. However, the metaphor is interpreted literally by many who, while relying on science in their everyday lives, reject science's conclusions. That's why the article treats the matter at its face value. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literal? 

message: "Hoyle's fallacy" as the intro says, "predates Hoyle". Indeed, Fred Hoyle is far from the first to have argued that emergence of life out of non-life is a highly improbable event.
A quote from biochemist Norman Horowitz, which I found in Stephen J. Dick's book The Biological Universe:
"It is assumed by some biologists, and in my experience, by most astronomers who consider the matter, that the probability of the origin of life given favorable conditions – ie., conditions resembling those of the primitive Earth – is practically unity. I think that this optimistic estimate may be far from the mark... an objective estimate, based on known chemistry and known biology, would lead to a probability for the origin of life of close to zero." (itals added)
This is from an article written in 1967, with the title "Biological Significance of the Search for Extraterrestrial Life". Horowitz wasn't arguing for panspermia or creationism, but for a low chance of finding life elsewhere in the cosmos. And Horowitz was a biochemist of some eminence. He was involved with the Viking mission to Mars, and saw its results as confirming his view that we Earth organisms have no interplanetary neighbors within light-years. 
My point is not that Horowitz was right about all this. Simply that the probability or improbability or life emerging from non-life (abiogenesis) has been a matter of serious scientific discussion through the twentieth century. As mentioned on the WP page Life on Titan, it has recently been suggested that if and when organisms are found on Saturn's moon, that would do a lot to answer the question of whether emergence of life is a high-probability or a low-probability occurrence… Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The probability of life emerging being close to zero is a perfectly reasonable view.  What makes Hoyle's view a fallacy is the bogus logic used to support it. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 05:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

text: What is the point of this thread? The article is about Hoyle,s Fallacy, not about the probability of abiogenesis. Seems completely off topic.--Charles (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Close to zero" chance of life getting started? 

message: I tagged this article as having undue weight, because there is no mention of specific sources that support Hoyle's statement and their reasons for doing so. Proud Novice (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but a little more than that explanation is required for a tag to be retained in the article. What sources? What reasons? Is there some proposed alteration to the article? Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's worth a tag, but a bit more elaboration from the pro-tornado crowd about why evolution is unlikely probably wouldn't hurt; that material is pretty sketchy at the moment, limited to some small quotes from Hoyle.  Unfortunately, Criticism of evolution#Improbability is no help, as there isn't much there either, as that section is rather snidely dismissive of anti-evolution arguments ("this is fundamentally an argument from lack of imagination", etc. - did they just call anti-evolutionists stupid?). SnowFire (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Argument from lack of imagination" is actually another name for the informal fallacy known as argument from ignorance.  A wikilink would might be a good idea over there so as not to look like wikipedia is calling people stupid, though... siafu (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

text: No, your post was undue weight and original research.  Dave is correct.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Empiric, who says evolution has to be a compound event? Generally, it's seen as a cumulation of events, sifted by natural selection. The time and number of generations are so huge that the merely very improbable becomes likely. Which is why you have to show who has published your argument, one which is at most a fringe view in science as shown by the sources cited in the article. . dave souza, talk 19:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Empiric's contribution is fine so long as it is strictly sourced.  The pro-evolution side gets to cheat a bit since that's the scientific consensus anyway, so it is correct for Wikipedia not to need a "This specific biologist says" formula, they all mostly agree.  The "counterargument" can't be phrased in Wikipedia's neutral voice, but it absolutely should be there; it just should be phrased along the lines of "Old Earth Creationist John Smith says..." SnowFire (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that not be giving undue weight to a fringe view?  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:FRINGE, it's okay to talk about fringe theories in articles on the fringe theories themselves - like this one.  To put things another way, the article on astrology should not just say "it's wrong;" it should also present the beliefs of astrologists.  In the same way, an article on claiming that evolution is impossibly improbable should have statements from adherents detailing exactly why they think so, and their responses to common counterarguments.  There's a little of it in the article now, sure, but it could use more than just the brief Hoyle calculations, especially since people other than Hoyle picked up the torch afterward and ran with it.  (Content should be limited to this specific line of argument, of course, not general "evolution is wrong" text.) SnowFire (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue Weight 

message: Regarding this second sentence:
It was used originally by Fred Hoyle's statistical analysis applied to evolutionary origins, but similar observations predate Hoyle and have been found all the way back to Darwin's time.[1][4]
The article linked to does not mention (much less provide any examples of) similar observations that date "all the way back to Darwin's time". I have no doubt that similar statements going back to Darwin's time could be found, but the citation do not provide any such examples (though the next citation does provide something similar from Cicero but which, since it was written in 45 B.C.E, addresses Epicureanism rather than Darwinism). 
I'm posting this here because I do not know how to flag this on the page with "CITATIONS NEEDED" and so on. Hopefully someone can provide the citations; if not, I think the second half of the sentence should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.231.221 (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations do not correspond to content 

message: In the anti-evolution movie "The Atheist Delusion" an "atheist" uses the argument that "it is like an explosion creating a 747". It is odd that he used the 747 argument and the movie talks a lot about Richard Dawkins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM&feature=youtu.be&t=6m29s  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legowolf3d (talk • contribs) 08:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any proposal for improving this article? This is not a forum for general discussion.Charles (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Atheist Delusion 

message: Clearly anyone reading this can see it is not balanced. And should be tagged. Where is the counter to the evolutionary argument. Yet the Lead is dedicated to its refutation. I promise you an pro-evolutionist wrote this. Even saying the argument is loved by creationist. Then do the creationist get to answer that? NO. The lead violates NPOV with a one-sided counter yet no mention of people like Meyers who wrote books supporting the Tornado argument.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.4.24 (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there probably should be more information from the anti-evolution side, but that doesn't mean the lede is unbalanced.  Who is Meyers?  What's their book?  Is it a book that is cited within anti-evolution circles and is notable, or is it an independently published print-on-demand on Amazon thing?  It's possible your source can still be included, but it won't change the lede noting that the experts don't generally give much credence to this argument...  SnowFire (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV violated 

message: this article is written as if we know abiogenesis is a fact, and that Hoyle was a crackpot for being in favor of panspermia. We do not know that. Evolution is a wonderful theory that explains a lot of what we see on earth, but it DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. 
I really take issue with this sentence: "The theory of evolution has been studied and tested extensively by numerous researchers and scientists and is the most scientifically accurate explanation for the origins of complex life."
by definition, all life is complex. Evolution does not explain at all how life came to be, it only describes how life IS. 
the very title of this article, 'Hoyle's Fallacy', suggests that he made some sort of mistake in suggesting that abiogenesis is impossibly unlikely; 'fallacy' suggests an erroneous conclusion. We in fact do not know the origin of life, and therefore, this cannot be a fallacy, because nobody has shown the end path of his reasoning to be incorrect. In fact, outside of internet wikis, this term doesn't seem to even exist in an official capacity. This article sucks, the title sucks, and it's full of crappy / nonexistent sources, and as someone said above, it only seems to be a fallacy because certain people disagree with the conclusion, and believe that their own impossible-to-test hypothesis is more correct.
Binglederry (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article reflects the scientific consensus. I am sorry that you (you say "we")  but that is not relevant. Neither is your reasoning in favor of panspermia. What reliable sources say is relevant. If you have better ones that the ones currently used, bring them. If there unsourced sentences outside of the lead, call them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

text: The fact the we don't exactly know how life originated doesn't negate the fallacious nature of this argument. Partofthemachine (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article sucks 

message: Bad wording. It does not apply anywhere because it is false. It is just a piece of nonsense Dembski has invented, and it basically claims that epsilon = 0 for all epsilon which are close to 0. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Borel's Law"