Talk:Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit/Archive 1

message: In my copy of the book I find SFA of those squigly formula thingies. Though I understand it I call it WP:OR. That aside at least we're all against that NOMA stuff, as is Dawkins, and think it all quite possible to calculate the probability of god. Looks like the new gap for god is between the asymptote close to zero but someones parked a bunch of parts for a 747 in the way though. Ttiotsw 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research in this article

message: The criticisms of the view are 4 times the lenght of the explanations. Looks like a classic hatchet job.  Sophia 10:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello NBeale! I have mixed feelings about this article. My personal opinion is that the argument has not been properly spelled out by Mr Dawkins. :) Still, there is an interesting debate going between Dennett and Orr. The fact that Dennett still considers this a significant contribution of the book is a good reason for having an article, but I'm afraid it is very hard to treat the subject properly based on the currently available sources. Most crucially, I don't know how to write a philosophical exposition of the argument, and even if I knew, it would be original research. --Merzul 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should be a redirect. As great as I think the book is, each argument within it does not deserve its own article.  Sophia 18:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Not notable enough for an article of its own. If the Boeing 747 gambit deserves an article, then so does Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, and every other catchy phrase used by scientists and philosophers and other writers the world over. My view on this has nothing to do with whether I agree with the view that Nbeale is trying to push through this and other articles - though that is another issue! Gnusmas 19:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, atheist Wikipedians would have a too easy time here if it wasn't for NBeale :) But the consensus seems against this argument's notability. Other than NBeale, I'm the only one that would be interested in this article, and I've raised my objections above, so do we go through another AfD to have some more opinions? --Merzul 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a waste of everyones time - quite frankly this is gaming the system at its best. No one agrees with NBeale and this article was deleted just 4 months ago. Do we need to go through this every few months until we get bored and give in? He has been reverted by numerous editors and is the only one pushing for a separate article so why is it still here? AfD here we go.....  Sophia 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because something is created with an agenda doesn't mean the content is necessarily bad. This article is very different from the one that was nominated for deletion, and I'm genuinely interested in this argument, I'm especially curious in what Dennett sees in it. Having said that, I would currently vote redirect to The God Delusion, because we don't have enough sympathetic sources to write anything but a "Criticism of the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit" and Plantinga and Orr are already included in the God Delusion article. However, if we would have a formal exposition of this argument by Dennett I would be interested in having an article here. --Merzul 21:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV article

message: As a relative newcomer to WikiPedia it still seems to me that if people want to nominate this as an AfD they should do so rather than stealth-delete through a redirect.  If no-one else does a proper AfD nom then I suppose I will have to, but that seems odd since I don't think the article should be deleted.  According to the journal of Evolutionary Philosophy: "Much of what Dawkins had to say in the first three chapters, especially his argument against agnosticism, depended entirely on his promise to prove in chapter four that God was too improbable to exist. Dawkins based the entire credibility of his book on this chapter, and the only proof that he delivered was a rhetorical hypothesis." So it's quite notable enough for its own article, and it is properly refed.  Please either improve it or make a rational AfD case or leave it alone. NBeale 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would count this as a stealth recreate rather than a stealth delete as current concensus is way against recreating this article. Anyway I have just spent the last 30 mins working out how the afd pages work for a second nomination and we are up and running at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit_2. Put the criticisms of the argument in the book where they can be kept within balance and without undue weight.  Sophia 22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even so, thank you for going through the trouble and doing this in a formally correct way. I appreciate your efforts with the templates and all. This might not be a waste of time as the result might be an article on scientific arguments against the existence of God and there are very good sources and interesting books on that subject, so Dawkins' argument could be put in the appropriate context, and the criticism would no longer have undue weight because we could draw on far more sources on both sides of the argument. This would be a very good outcome, I mean, aren't these scientific arguments one of the main reasons people don't believe in God? --Merzul 23:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD  Proposal 

message: I have looked a bit for sources now, and one option would be to integrate the 747 gambit into the proper treatment of improbability arguments. In particular, look at the following books: 
* http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811
* http://www.amazon.com/Improbability-God-Michael-Martin/dp/1591023815
A sample chapter and summary of arguments:
* http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/ImpGodChapter.htm
* http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm
For example, here is a much better formalization of Dawkins' argument. This is how he should have spelled it out (from Stenger's The Illusion of Design):
# Hypothesize a model God who is the creator and preserver of the physical universe, including Earth and the living organisms that abide on that planet.
# Assume that model God plays an important, continuing role in guiding the development of life on Earth.
# We can reasonably expect that empirical evidence should exist for design, purpose, and continuous outside action in the structures of those organisms.
# No such empirical evidence can be found.
# Science provides a purely material explanation for the development of those structures by mindless natural processes.
# Earth and life do not distinguish between the model God and a model in which there is no God. That is, they do look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God such as the model God.
# We conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God like our model God, who is the all-perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing creator and preserver of the physical universe including Earth and the living organisms that abide on that planet, does not exist.
This might not fit in this particular article (because of WP:SYNT concerns), but I have at least satisfied my own curiosity :) --Merzul 22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Merzul. The problem is that this argument (Stenger's) is a completely different argument against the Existence of God from the one proposed by Dawkins at this point in the book.  He approves of Stenger's arguments, but it's not the one he's making here.  NBeale 03:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is right, but I was thinking of a broader article, in which Dawkins's argument can be seen as a variation. I'm not very fond of these very narrow articles that can not be expanded beyond what we currently have here. It also violates my principles to use a critic when outlining the logical form of an argument. --Merzul 08:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would strongly support a more general article, with the Boeing 747 as one example among many (or maybe not so very many) arguments for the improbability (or against the probability) of a god. Alternatively, as I and others have been proposing all along, a more general article on The God Delusion, with the 747 featuring as one example of what Dawkins says in the book (which of course we already have). Either way, it's the same principle: the 747 on its own is not significant enough for a whole article, and the only way of producing any meaningful content about it seems to be to pick it to death and parade lots of critics all saying how woeful it is - which makes for a very one-sided POV article. One question about a more general god-improbability article: How many other such articles are there already, and how would this new one find its niche? Snalwibma 09:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm actually not quite sure what the general article would be and what would be its niche. What I do see are some good books on these issues, and I think atheist philosopher will increasingly turn their attention to this line of argument. Regarding other articles on Wikipedia, most of our arguments focus on the logical side showing the impossibility of God, e.g. argument from poor design. In any case, we seem to agree on the general point here that the current focus on Dawkins's popular title is too restrictive for an article on a stand-alone argument, but I notice that on the AfD there seems to be support for having this article as it currently stands, I'm a bit surprised, perhaps we should also have an article on the changing moral zeitgeist, which was praised by many reviewers, and could be seen as a standalone argument too by this measure.   --Merzul 10:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real argument here... 

message: NBeale - please carry out discussion of the article's content here, and do not misuse the AfD page to make unfounded allegations about the motives of your fellow-editors. Or, to put it another way, how exactly have I edited the article to make it worse? I have merely deleted references to two "commentators" who do not in fact comment on the topic of the article. You may disagree with me (I guess you do!) - but if so you should discuss it here. You have no right to make assumptions and allegations about my motives on another page. Snalwibma 23:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuse of AfD page

message: I have edited the "commentators" section to try and clarify whether these people actually refer to the topic of the article. [Well, yes, of course I think those who don't should be deleted altogether.] It occurs to me, however, that I don't actually know whether McGrath, Orr, Dennett and Plantinga mention the 747 in any shape or form either. Would someone be able to check, and quote chapter and verse? If the article stays, let's at least make sure it contains only material that is germane to the subject! Snalwibma 07:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Commentators" who do and do not comment

message: Dear NBeale - Please let me try and explain - first, what lies behind my own recent edits to the article, and second, why I think the article should be a redirect, not an article in its own right. You are of course correct in pointing out (above) that Dawkins does not own the argument in the wider sense that you are expanding it into in your edits, but he does (in a way) own the phrase that the article is about. You are quite entitled to write about the argument in the widest sense, but it is not appropriate to do so in this article. You have a choice: either (1) this is an article about the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit or (2) it is an article about a wider kind of argument about complexity and designers and the probability or otherwise of a god, etc. If (1), then the contents must stick strictly to that subject, and not wander off into other variations on the theme, or bring in other commentaries on Dawkins' ideas which are not specifically about the "Boeing 747" idea. If (2), then the article should be called something different, such as Improbability of god or Argument from improbability. Seems to me that as long as it is called Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit there is in fact so little that really belongs there that it's better as a redirect to The God Delusion. That is why I have been consistently arguing for it be a redirect since last November. That's all. That's my agenda. No underhand tricks. No deliberate sabotage (far from it). No malice. Just sticking to some principles of what makes sense as an encyclopaedia article, and trying to uphold wikipedia principles like NPOV and OR. Snalwibma 16:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Snalwibma. Dawkins explicitly gives this title to this argument: "It is a very strong and, I suspect unanswerable argument ... My name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit"(The God Delusion, p113). I agree that Dawkins has an unfortunate knack of giving catchy but misleading titles to things.  Even he admits that "The God Delusion" was a poor choice. NBeale 11:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits