Talk:PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Older comments
2 Delete?
3 POV
4 Capitalisation
5 Cites requested
6 The Title of this article is wrong
7 Merge

[edit] Older comments

In the last several hours since it was brought to the attention of the readers of PZ Myers' blog <http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/at_lasta_specific_intelligent.php#commentsArea>, this article has evolved greatly. This morning it was rather incoherent drivel, but now it seems much better. I did one edit anonymously (I didn't have an account then). I would take off the prod tag, but I am a young user and the "rules" say that I should wait for someone with more authority to do so. I think that, as "PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments" stands now, it is a good, representative article describing a not-necessarily local phenomena. In the absence of a reason for suggested deletion, the prod tag should be removed. --Mike

No such rules. WP:PROD#How_to_prevent_an_article_from_being_deleted. I'm deprodding it for you. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete?

I still think this article should be deleted. It's "Something Made Up In School One Day", and pretty ~~NPOV~~ ... I mean POV. I think PZ Myers is notable enough to get an article though (he quite often gets put in genuine news blogs as a source from the scientific community, has very high traffic, and teaches), maybe this could get a few lines in there. I'm giving this article about 24 hours before I recheck the method of how to get things listed on VfD, its been a while.--ZayZayEM 11:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Being NPOV is a good thing. If you mean it's pretty POV, I don't see that, but you're welcome to improve it; being POV isn't a reason for deletion: "A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality". As for "Something Made Up In School One Day", this was not made up in school one day. -- Jibal 07:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This was made up on a website one day. this article is about the alleged internet phenomenom, not Jim Pinkoski's work, or PZ Myers' criticism. The internet phenomenom falls under the blanket of things made up in school one day IMO, and is unencyclopedic on that value alone, before any POV issues take hold.--ZayZayEM 08:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It was not made up on a website one day; it's a direct quote from Pinkoski's book. It was then taken up as a general term representing a style of argument. FWIW, I learned that from the article. -- Jibal 11:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim Pinkoski isn't the biggest name in Creationism, but neither is PZ Myers the biggest name in science advocacy. As an example of Creationist nuttery, PYGMIES + DWARFS is both a great example and relatively recognizable, thanks to things like Dr. Myers' blog posts. 'Course, what do I know, having signed up just to redirect PZ Meyers to the correct spelling. --Schwaumlaut

[edit] POV

I added "although they do show that in priciple this could occur." which is unsourced, like the rest of the sentence, but seems to me just as obvious. This still leaves the dual assumption that
a.) JP thought that there was a similar reason for the stature of D&P.
b.) That his critics assumed a. and chastised him for it.

(This doesn't address the reasons that either argument is bad - just the un-verifiabilty of the article as it stands.) Rich Farmbrough, 12:24 5 September 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Capitalisation

"this is still an unsourced statement, weasel words do not get you out of needing sources" ZZ says. The reason for changing it is that the previous version was demonstrably wrong. And it is not I that need sources, but the article, two of which I have provided. Moreover putting ^{[citation needed]} on every statement is a little pointless, I'd rather someone tries to substantiate something substantive, than the typography, which I think, no-one is really challenging. Rich Farmbrough, 13:24 5 September 2006 (GMT).

You cant substantiante something insubstantial. I put ^{[citation needed]} on everything to show just how lacking and ridiculous the concept of this as an article is. None of this article is based on fact, or really anything real. Please someone prove me wrong, all I need is a link, which shouldn't be too hard as it's being claimed as a widespread blogging phenomenom. I just looked through a random selection of those google hits. they were either referring directly to Pharyngula, message board sigs, or just nonsense.--ZayZayEM 13:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

~~Read WP:POINT. Then read WP:AGF. Then look at the fact that I argued for refernces in the above section. Rich Farmbrough, 11:16 7 September 2006 (GMT).~~

Why is that comment struck out? "to show just how lacking and ridiculous the concept of this as an article is" is very much a violation of WP:POINT. -- Jibal 11:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not violating WP:POINT. I am following Wikipedia protocol of pointing out where citations are needed. To violate WP:POINT I need to disrupt Wikipedia's normal rules. I have not done that. The comment was removed by the editor, I restored it struck out.--ZayZayEM 01:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cites requested

I have reduce the cites requested in "The Pinkoski quote is often used by bloggers to ridicule creationist arguments, illustrating a misunderstanding on the part of Pinkoski" to two, first we should have a resonable number (say four or five) blog cites, or ideally a link to something reliable reviewing blog sites to support the first part of the arguement (that bloggers often use it to ridicule) - if we cna only find a few examples it should be changed to "Some bloggers have used" or similar. Secondly we need to illustrate that they address a precieved misunderstanding. The examples I've seen use it as an (invalid) blanket ad-hominem argument to dismiss all who question (and not in terms of doubt, but merely asking for clarification) evolution.

Thirdly without some well documented cogent argument about the whole phrase, by the "anti Pinkowski" folk, or indeed anyone, we should remove the information about pygmies and dwarves - the whole thing becomes X said Y, Z said "Y, how ridiculous" and used it to label arguments they disagreed with. We do not have to (and indeed should not) comment on the rights and wrongs of the argument.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:38 5 September 2006 (GMT).

I'm appending a list of blog-cites below. I do not believe that the list is at all comprehensive, as most people using P+D are making an allusion rather than an exact quote. (And even those trying for the exact quote usually botch it.) I also didn't do a Google blogsearch. I think we have enough cites here to satisfy your request for "four or five", and I think we've got enough to justify the phrase "some bloggers have used". I'm not willing to try to defend "bloggers often use".

Since many of the reverts on this article seem to be disputes over exactly what is meant when someone alludes to P+D, I'm adding my characterization of the range of usages that appear in the cite-list below. If your assessment differs, please let me know.

1. Topics range from anti-creationism/anti-ID (the bulk of the usage) to political and social commentary. On political/social topics it's typically used from the left against the right; in science issues it's typically used by pro-science against pseudoscience and evolution-critics, although there's at least one instance (see Bad Astronomy Blog) where it was used to mock what was perceived as bad science within the scientific establishment.

2. It's typically found in the comments section of a blog, although a few bloggers have used it in the main post itself.

3. There appear to be several things that are meant by P+D, depending on who's using it and when:

3a. If the blogger uses it in the post, it's usually to assert by analogy that there's a ridiculously large gap in the logic of whatever the blogger is posting about.

3b. If the blogger's post asserts that some argument is wrong/ridiculous, and P+D appears as a comment about the post itself, its use usually amounts to "Hear, hear! That which you are criticizing is as ridiculous/fallacious as P+D!" Sometimes it appears to mean "It's futile to make these arguments, given that the people you're talking about make arguments as bad as P+D." (Both of those paraphrases are me making gross interpretations of subtext, as the commenter seldom goes on to clarify exactly what he or she meant by the reference.)

3c. If P+D appears when the commenters are arguing among themselves, there seems to be two different usages:

3c1. "Your comment/question was so ridiculous I refuse to take it seriously."

3c2. "Some key part of what you thought was a logically tight argument is actually irrelevant." (A few a members of this sub-group go on to clarify their meaning in plain English, so I'm reasonably confident of my interpretation of intent.) Some appear to be use it in an attempt to be constructive, others use it more dismissively.

4. Except for places like Pharyngula, Tangled Bank, Panda's Thumb, and the Talk-Origins discussion group, it seems to be used with the expectation that people won't know the reference -- the commenter supplies a link to one of the original Pharyngula posts, or the blogger follows-up with another post explaining what the P+D reference was about. Sanguinity 20:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And, as promised, the citations themselves. I am, for what I hope is obvious reasons, leaving out the citations that appeared on Pharyngula itself. Sanguinity 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Return to Discussion

Sanguinity says "it seems to be used with the expectation that people won't know the reference" - could this be because it's not notable? And even its users recognise this. This does not change my view that this is a really childish, not notable phrase used by people just a little too obsessed with Pharyngula, or not bothering to actually argue with creationists (trust me, its not that hard, a little annoying, but definitely not hard). Can I label it as fancruft?

Oh and I'm definitely still going to use the "this is not enough evidence of notability" argument (damn it!)--ZayZayEM 01:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Title of this article is wrong

I think that it's part of the unencyclopedic nature of this that contributes to this, and doubt it can find a successful name.

Is this term "PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments" in common usage? I think not.

Not only does Wikipedia abhor a plural (Making "PYGMIES + DWARF argument"), but teh title itself seems awkward and hard to use in a sentance.

Even if we were to accept the phenomenom was in fact a real one, this title is wrong and will be changed if by some stroke of calmatous proportions the AFd doesn't work.--ZayZayEM 00:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be "PYGMIES + DWARFS" as it's about the phrase, which is a quote. Rich Farmbrough, 14:30 12 September 2006 (GMT).

I did find references to PYGMIES + DWARFS logic, which I think makes a bit of sense too, changing the title will inexorably require a change of article content to suit the new title.--ZayZayEM 05:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

The AFD was closed as a merge, but the text was just dumped into the Myers article. I've undone it until it can be done properly. Guettarda 18:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/y/g/Talk%7EPYGMIES_%2B_DWARFS_arguments_e352.html"

Talk:PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Older comments

[edit] Delete?

[edit] POV

[edit] Capitalisation

[edit] Cites requested

[edit] Commentary on Evolution Critics

[edit] Commentary on general science or pseudo-science

[edit] Politics/Religion/Social Commentary

[edit] Return to Discussion

[edit] The Title of this article is wrong

[edit] Merge

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search