Talk:Steve Fuller (sociologist)

message: at least in my opinion, the article is still somehow adulatory- it seems like if it were written by a fan.--Greece666 23:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree Greece666.  I particularly laughed at this section : "Although in recent years he has taken up the mantle of Karl Popper, his style more recalls Voltaire in its wit, even sarcasm, and independence of thought".  How much more POV could this be?  I think many people would know who Popper and Voltaire were, but Fuller?  Admittedly they've got time on their side, but it's not obvious to me that an ID stooge like Fuller will be remembered so glowingly.  Anyway, I reckon we need to address the POV issues.  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too: even after there have been some edits. What I've read of this guy's suggests he's a bit of an also-ran. ElectricRay 18:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. Somebody who blatantly commits the naturalistic fallacy, as quoted on this page, should not get to be a full professor of anything, not even sociology.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: And I've reverted back: "Leading" is in intrinsically value-laden description, and i think must necessarily constitute a non-neutral point of view. You could change this by saying he has been "described as a leading figure by xxx" - which is a factual statement, and is acceptable - but otherwise the expression isn't suitable for a dispassionate encyclopaedia. ElectricRay 13:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support the revert back.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing style 

message: The reason I included these two essays is that I think they give a good articulation, in the words of actual participants (one of which was Fuller himself), of the two sides in the 'science wars.' It is, at least in my opinion, the sort of thing that we need if we are going to give a useful exposition of how Fuller & the scientific community view each other. That is not of course to suggest that even better examples (or even better ways of characterising this example) don't exist. Hrafn42 13:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quick note on the two essays from The Independent 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Listening to his post-Dover lecture (linked on the front page here), and reading the transcript of the debate he had (again linked on the front page here), Fuller is badly confused. Wow why is he so celebrated? He seems totally confused and ignorant about science.--Filll (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuller would appear to be the darling of the sort of militantly relativist, post-modernist, left-wingers who consider the science establishment to be an ethnocentric and illegitimate self-appointed oligarchy. The scientific community consider his ideas to be about as workable and as relevant as an LSD hallucination, but his viewpoint has generated sufficient 'scholarship' (at least in terms of articles in peer-reviewed social science journals) for it to be taken seriously as academic sociology, if not as a basis for actually doing and organising scientific research. The fact that his ideas are lending support to blatantly ethnocentric and illegitimate creationists leads many in his own field to suggest that he's being naive. HrafnTalkStalk 11:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what he said: ``If you take seriously that evolution has to do with the transition of life forms, and that life and death are just natural processes, then one gets to be liberal about abortion and euthanasia. All of those kinds of ideas seem to me follow very naturally from a Darwinian perspective-- a deprivileging of human beings, basically. And I think people who want to endorse Darwinism have to take this kind of viewpoint very seriously. Nobody beyond philosophy 101 would spout such drivel.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Amazing

message: I have undone Hrafn's deletion of my edit. Before my additions, this article read very prejudicially. No indication of Fuller's views on ID were presented in an easily accessible manner (other than his Dover testimony), yet the harshest critics all seem to be represented. Also I added a link to the pre-history to his dispute with Levitt, since Levitt figures prominently as a critic in this entry. Also Fuller responded to Levitt's views precisely on the points that are highlighted in the entry, to which Levitt responded. (Both I represented.) It's fine to include the Guardian review, which is very short and written by a journalist, but it should also be fine to include a much longer review by someone who is actually expert in the subject that Fuller's book is about. And this person generally praised the book, despite criticisms. In his explanation, Hrafn says that 'Book of the Week' review does not mean 'book of week'. That's simply bizarre, and it shows the extent that Hrafn wishes to prejudice the presentation of Fuller's position. VaihingerTalkundated comment was added at 05:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keep at it, Hrafn, you are not alone. Also, I smell a sock puppet.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Thank you for that WP:POT rant. Having just written an attack-piece against Levitt, you accuse me of being "hostile to Fuller" and "go[ing] through all this effort to trash Fuller" -- whereas it is simply the WP:DUE weight of WP:RSs that are generally hostile to him. As I said above, the only prominent defender of Fuller appears to be Fuller himself. I attach no particular "authority" to Levitt -- he is just yet another academic who is highly skeptical of Fuller's positions. Your claim, on the basis of a 14-year old criticism by Fuller, that there is "bad blood between Fuller and Levitt" is a stretch. In that period Fuller apparently wrote a number of hostile reviews of books from the 'science side' of the Science wars -- including of books by Lewis Wolpert & Steven Weinberg, so I rather doubt if Levitt took it personally. Given that Weinberg, as a Nobel-prizewinner, appears to have gained at least some insight into how to 'do science' successfully, you might expect somebody whose field is called 'Science Studies' might find it beneficial to engage in a dialogue, rather than lobbing polemic grenades at them. However Fuller's view seems to be that 'science is doing it wrong' (and presumably therefore that a successful scientist must therefore be doing it 'wronger' than most) -- all without any apparent first-hand contact with those who actually 'do science' (contact with whom might yield insights into why they do things the way that they do). Am I "hostile" to such a contrarian attitude? Possibly, but I try not to let it influence the article -- whose purpose is to give WP:DUE weight to to WP:RS opinions of Fuller. If you can find some positive WP:RS opinions of equal (greater) prominence, we give them equal (even greater) weight. However, all you have provided to date is Fuller's own opinions on himself and a misrepresentation of a largely negative review as being positive. HrafnTalkStalk 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrafn, you must have pretty thin skin or you've been away from academia for a while. I wasn't having an 'anti-Levitt rant'. My point was simply that if you really think an entry on Fuller should focus so much on Levitt's criticisms, then the context of those criticisms need to be provided and also some recognition of the fact that Fuller has attempted to answer them. From your latest statement, it seems you haven't read Fuller's review of Wolpert and Weinberg. If you read it, you'd see that he's reviewing their two books together because they had been already attacking science studies. And in fact, in a subsequent issue of Social Studies of Science, Wolpert and Weinberg have their say. I'm not sure what you mean by 'dialogue', if not that. Fuller's difference from most of the rest of the science studies people is that he didn't and hasn't backed down when the scientists attack. This is not a popular move, I grant you. But again, you've got to see this in context. Also, if you google Fuller's and Levitt's names together, you'll see that Fuller wrote at least two other critical reviews of Levitt's books before Levitt did the piece in 'Talk Reason'. So I stick by the 'bad blood' attribution. Also, while Fuller is often sarcastic when dealing with Levitt, Levitt is just downright angry. (I have this bad habit of reading the things I link.) Maybe you need still more evidence of 'bad blood'. But you'll notice I haven't attempted to put that in the Wikipedia entry. Finally, I think the THES Book of the Week review of 'Dissent over Descent' is overall positive, especially given its designation as 'book of the review'. I live in Britain and have seen the hardcopy. It's perhaps more obvious when seen that way. But readers can decide for themselves. VaihingerTalk  —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be both honest and correct. That a complete idiot like Fuller has a career in academia signifies the total intellectual bankruptcy of out culture.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Prejudicial

message: *If the only way you you can correct this "prejudicial" treatment is to inaccurately present the THES review, which was largely critical of Fuller's repeated misrepresentations & inaccuracies, then that says something about the real balance of opinion on his work.
*You claimed that a "book of the week" (uncapitalised) review meant being "named Book of the Week" -- the precise reverse of the inaccurate accusation you made against me.
Find a WP:RS who actually finds Fuller's claims to be credible, and we'll give it WP:DUE weight in the article. As it stands, he doesn't appear to have many supporters. HrafnTalkStalk 08:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate

message: Vaihinger's addition states:
This is in gross violation of WP:NPOV (and occasionally WP:NOR), in that:
*It states Fuller's claim that the book was "less a defence of contemporary intelligent design theory than a demonstration of its rootedness in the history of science" as fact.
*The claim that the misquote is " one of the three passages he cites from the book" appears to be WP:OR, designed to give WP:UNDUE weight to Levitt's error.
*The "largely elaborating his original points" is dismissive WP:OR editorialising, as is that "It is worth observing..."
I get the point -- Vaihinger likes Fuller, and dislikes Levitt. But as the only person who appears to share Vaihinger's viewpoint is Fuller himself, we should not be rewriting the article to give this WP:UNDUE weight. HrafnTalkStalk 08:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keep at it, Hrafn, you are not alone. Also, I smell a sock puppet.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Levitt attack-piece

message: Per WP:MOSLINKS#Link titles, please place informative link titles for referenced links. I put a -tag on the third (and correct) THES article by Fuller you linked to as "A concise statement of his position", on the mistaken impression that it was the second (and incorrect). HrafnTalkStalk 08:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Link titles

message: I hope this deals with your 'editorial' criticisms. It's pretty transparent that Hrafn is hostile to Fuller, but I will abide by the Laws of Wikipedia. However, I'm puzzled why go through all this effort to trash Fuller, if you think he doesn't have many supporters? I happen to think Fuller is reasonably significant, but that doesn't mean I 'support' him in the sense of believing everything he says. I am also frankly amazed at the authority you attach to Norman Levitt, who after all has published all his criticisms of Fuller in non-peer-reviewed forums (at least the ones you cite), and typically without much explicit citation of Fuller's own work. Clearly there is bad blood between Fuller and Levitt, which is why I referred to the much earlier criticism that Fuller made of Levitt. This goes to the matter of providing some background context to what is clearly a feud. Otherwise, it's easy for the neutral reader (not you perhaps) to get the impression that Levitt has a personal vendetta against Fuller. So you see, Hrafn, I am actually trying to make Levitt look good too!VaihingerTalk  —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that WP:POT rant. Having just written an attack-piece against Levitt, you accuse me of being "hostile to Fuller" and "go[ing] through all this effort to trash Fuller" -- whereas it is simply the WP:DUE weight of WP:RSs that are generally hostile to him. As I said above, the only prominent defender of Fuller appears to be Fuller himself. I attach no particular "authority" to Levitt -- he is just yet another academic who is highly skeptical of Fuller's positions. Your claim, on the basis of a 14-year old criticism by Fuller, that there is "bad blood between Fuller and Levitt" is a stretch. In that period Fuller apparently wrote a number of hostile reviews of books from the 'science side' of the Science wars -- including of books by Lewis Wolpert & Steven Weinberg, so I rather doubt if Levitt took it personally. Given that Weinberg, as a Nobel-prizewinner, appears to have gained at least some insight into how to 'do science' successfully, you might expect somebody whose field is called 'Science Studies' might find it beneficial to engage in a dialogue, rather than lobbing polemic grenades at them. However Fuller's view seems to be that 'science is doing it wrong' (and presumably therefore that a successful scientist must therefore be doing it 'wronger' than most) -- all without any apparent first-hand contact with those who actually 'do science' (contact with whom might yield insights into why they do things the way that they do). Am I "hostile" to such a contrarian attitude? Possibly, but I try not to let it influence the article -- whose purpose is to give WP:DUE weight to to WP:RS opinions of Fuller. If you can find some positive WP:RS opinions of equal (greater) prominence, we give them equal (even greater) weight. However, all you have provided to date is Fuller's own opinions on himself and a misrepresentation of a largely negative review as being positive. HrafnTalkStalk 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrafn, you must have pretty thin skin or you've been away from academia for a while. I wasn't having an 'anti-Levitt rant'. My point was simply that if you really think an entry on Fuller should focus so much on Levitt's criticisms, then the context of those criticisms need to be provided and also some recognition of the fact that Fuller has attempted to answer them. From your latest statement, it seems you haven't read Fuller's review of Wolpert and Weinberg. If you read it, you'd see that he's reviewing their two books together because they had been already attacking science studies. And in fact, in a subsequent issue of Social Studies of Science, Wolpert and Weinberg have their say. I'm not sure what you mean by 'dialogue', if not that. Fuller's difference from most of the rest of the science studies people is that he didn't and hasn't backed down when the scientists attack. This is not a popular move, I grant you. But again, you've got to see this in context. Also, if you google Fuller's and Levitt's names together, you'll see that Fuller wrote at least two other critical reviews of Levitt's books before Levitt did the piece in 'Talk Reason'. So I stick by the 'bad blood' attribution. Also, while Fuller is often sarcastic when dealing with Levitt, Levitt is just downright angry. (I have this bad habit of reading the things I link.) Maybe you need still more evidence of 'bad blood'. But you'll notice I haven't attempted to put that in the Wikipedia entry. Finally, I think the THES Book of the Week review of 'Dissent over Descent' is overall positive, especially given its designation as 'book of the review'. I live in Britain and have seen the hardcopy. It's perhaps more obvious when seen that way. But readers can decide for themselves. VaihingerTalk  —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be both honest and correct. That a complete idiot like Fuller has a career in academia signifies the total intellectual bankruptcy of out culture.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Placated?

message: This is extremely misleading. The RSA is basically a member's club to which one pays an annual fee - it has 27,000 fellows. It is not an elite Learned Society like the Royal Society or British Academy. Fellowship is not a high honour bestowed by one's peers, like FRS (for example) is. Although there is some sort of selection process, it is not at all of comparable rigour, and any successful person (certainly ANY university professor of any sort) can reasonably expect to gain membership (providing they pay their fees on time). Maybe this piece of trivia should therefore be relegated to a less prominent part of the article? Badgerpatrol (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a while since I looked into this, but I believe the RSA's selection criteria is published on their website. The "percentage of UK university professors [who] are members of the RSA" is not as relevant as whether any who apply are turned down. The former would tend to conflate exclusivity with academics simply not bothering to apply. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSA fellowship 

message: Is he a Continental or Analytic philosopher? Wandering Courier (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly not Analytic, since basic reasoning skills are a prerequisite for that field. Mind you, the continentals were not slouches either. I don't think he deserves to be called a philosopher at all.81.178.147.64 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continental or Analytic 

message: A paragraph was deleted with the notation "unsourced edits/ BLP".
The paragraph quotes from Steve Fuller's book "Dissent over Descent" which was the heading of the section. So the context of the quotes gives the sources. How would you want the paragraph changed to be "sourced"?  Would a footnote for each quote citing the book be satisfactory? Or a foonote at end the of the paragraph?
This was the paragraph:
"Referring to "fellow travellers" and reporting that the Panda's Thumb blog (referenced earlier in this article) is nicknamed "Darwin's Brownshirts" (at least by some ID supporters), might explain some reactions (referenced earlier in this section). Unexpected Intelligent Design loyalties are revealed among physicists: "ID theorists James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann". Fuller mentions his education by Jesuits and later links the Jesuits to the origins of the word propaganda, though he doesn't mention the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide."
205.189.194.208 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it "unsourced edits/ BLP" to quote from the actual book? 

message: Fuller's Humanity 2.0 has been reviewed in a wide variety of forums and has sold well, yet there is none of the meticulous discussion of its claims that one sees for the books where he defends intelligent design theory, even though he actually talks about that there. The same applies for his previous book, Science (The Art of Living). It seems that Wikipedia editors only take notice when a work appears on the radar of the journals/magazines/blogs they read. Maybe what I'm saying is obvious, but it's worth saying in case people think that NPOV and other Wikipedia conventions guarantee 'objectivity' in any normal sense of the term.Ronald Duchamp (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious feature of this entry 

message: Substituted at 07:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment