Talk:Stephen C. Meyer

message: Pseudoscience should not be used as the primary description. Dr. Meyer is a well-respected author and academic with decades of experience. He is an advocate for Theism, which is a philosophical school of thought that necessarily includes Intelligent Design as a component. Nkjames (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023 

message: Pesudoscience should be changed to hypothesis. Nkjames (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying it’s pseudoscience is so bias. This is why Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source on most school papers and they’re always asking for donations. It’s just a couple peoples opinions on a subject, rather than real analysis. 166.182.253.73 (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullshit. Calling a spade a spade is not bias. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah you don’t get it lol 216.212.19.204 (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, everybody except you doesn't get it. That is the general attitude of pseudoscience adherents. Again: See WP:PSCI. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023 

message: Pseudoscience is an opinionated and biased word. Wikipedia does not decide what constitutes science, and it drags the credibility of the website down. 2607:FB91:101A:8C3B:C0E:F20A:79A4:4B75 (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you disagree, then you must provide proof against his claims. If you have no proof against it, you cannot claim it’s pseudoscience. 2607:FB91:101A:8C3B:C0E:F20A:79A4:4B75 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023 

message: Pseudoscience should be replaced with hypothesis. 2607:FB91:101A:8C3B:C0E:F20A:79A4:4B75 (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources write about our subjects. Reliable sources call "intelligent design" pseudoscience so Wikipedia does, too. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100006119#:~:text=The%20theory%20that%20life%2C%20or,Dictionary%20of%20Phrase%20and%20Fable%20%C2%BB 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

text: why is Wikipedia changing the dictionary? 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

text: https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023 (2) 

message: Change “advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design” to “advocate of intelligent design”.
Reason: The word pseudoscience is defined as a collection of beliefs or practices MISTAKENLY regarded as being based on scientific method. Saying this is a pseudoscience assumes that it is mistaken therefore poisoning the well for dialogue. Not saying intelligent design is a fact, but to call it a pseudoscience is already assuming what the author of those words believes to be true, they are likely an atheist or anti theist. 2600:1700:B851:7F80:9A5:48B5:A58B:1F0D (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: —wrong! I think that the overwhelming majority of scientists who are Christian would grant the point that ID is pseudoscience. Yup, ID is a WP:FRINGE belief, even restricting the sample to Christians. Who believes in ID? A part of Christian fundamentalists and a part of evangelicals, i.e. those who don't think that the ID movement are turncoats from Young Earth Creationism. tgeorgescu (talk)  08:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also a few Catholics. ID is unfalsifiable enough and its science camouflage near enough to appeal to them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, they got some rich donors who want to stick it to "Darwinism" in any way they can (thinking the enemy of my enemy is my friend), but the Christian masses are not exactly enthusiastic about ID. Just because they claim that the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God, it does not mean ID won the approval of the bulk of creationist organizations. tgeorgescu (talk)  13:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2023 

message: “He is an advocate of the  pseudoscience of intelligent design…”
The phrase “the pseudoscience of intelligent design” is an instance of poor writing through imprecision and bias. One does not need to believe in intelligent design to understand how informing the reader that the subject of the page, Meyer, “advocate[s] … pseudoscience” would accomplish no purpose other than tending to discredit him. Obviously, Meyer would deny that he “advocate[s] … pseudoscience”. The presence of the word “pseudoscience” adds no meaning or value to the description and only serves to purposefully color the reader’s impression of Meyer in a negative light. Thus, I would respectfully suggest that the phrase be edited to either, “He is an advocate of the hypothesis of intelligent design…”, or simply, ““He is an advocate of intelligent design…”. Such phrasing better complies with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia’s rules. 2600:1006:B137:8622:3DCE:4E76:D94E:A2BC (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the polite message but articles at Wikipedia are written to provide information to readers and they should be informed early that intelligent design is, to put it politely, pseudoscience. Honestly, it's junk and the world needs more people to call junk junk. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You’ve probably never listened to him. 172.91.239.161 (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: All people who use sciency-sounding jargon seem credible to many. Wikipedia isn't "neutral" between science and pseudoscience, but decidedly sides with science, see WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk)  06:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imprecise/biased lead 

message: Change the term pseudoscience. That’s not accurate. 2600:6C55:600:2B33:AD66:ACE5:E52A:90D4 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, thanks, it's accurate, well sourced, and required by pseudoscience policy . . .dave souza, talk 16:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I believe this is an accurate correction. Chrisallen87 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody cares about what you believe. The only relevant thing here is what reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2024 

message: Change pseudoscience to theory or hypothesis
The use of the word pseudoscience to describe intelligent design research is prejudicial as ID is not of necessity “outside the scientific method.” A survey of Meyer’s work will reveal him to be a rigorous adherent to the scientific method but NOT methodological naturalism, itself a philosophical position. Moreover any criteria rigorously applied used to exclude ID as not fitting the definition of science proper would exclude numerous prevailing naturalistic theories. 69.109.235.155 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See above, under "Please read before starting". tgeorgescu (talk)  16:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with this proposition. Chrisallen87 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Nobody cares. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2024