User talk:Grimsooth

Did you really think Brian Garvey is an "otherwise unpublished author" when you wrote that on WP:RS/N? Please answer here. Zero^talk 14:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. When I searched for "Brian Garvey" I couldn't find the right "Brian Garvey" and believed the cited article may well be the only thing he had written (though now I've searched for him in the context and found his biography on Lancaster university's website). Due to semantics I believe I actually mean WP:DUE from what editors are telling me. The problem stems from the fact that Mr. Garvey's counterpoint is religious in nature while Russell's Teapot is not actually a religious argument. As noted in the talk page I wouldn't have an issue with it if Mr. Garvey's opinion was properly framed. Even if I Mr. Garvey is otherwise published, I still am unsure on the burden of evidence used for the terms "peer review" & "fact checking" per WP:sources. Ars Disputandi is edited by a few theologians and a minister (which is fine for a theological journal but not a philosophical one), and is by no means a "mainstream publication" so I didn't believe (and still don't) that Ars Disputandi is peer reviewed in the same sense as the New York times or the New England Journal of Medicine (which are referenced as the basis in WP:sources. I submit that this is evidenced by the fact that Mr. Garvey commits the logical (philosophical) fallacy of "Confirming the Antecedent", which is a pretty basic fallacy and this goes unremarked by the editors. Note other articles Ars Disputandi has published such as "Transcendence as the key issue between naturalism and the Christian concept of God" on page two the author writes "The real issue is that human beings cannot live without a ‘sacred canopy’ that provides a system of meaning, defines acceptability and grants authority"^[1], this is an accepted given, and is the same error. Par for the course (and fine) for theology, not acceptable for philosophy. Anyway I believed this made it a source issue (as it is so considered in academia), but apparently it is actually a WP:due one. Have I sufficiently answered your question, and do you have any suggestions on how I should proceed? To clarify, I'm not disputing the validity of the Author's article, but it's relevance and merit to be included in the article. Can you explain to me why Mr. Garvey's criticism should be included in an article on Russell's Teapot when hot tubs as a vector for STDs isn't included in the wiki-article under transmission? Grimsooth (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to do your homework Grimsooth. Garvey is a philosopher of science, with a focus on evolutionary psychology, cognitive science and philosophy of mind. He has published a book on the Philosophy of Biology. As to the journal many of it's editors are philosophers. Allan Bäck, David Basinger, Pamela Sue Anderson, Michael Scott, etc. Please do your homework before repeating false information about living people and about academic publications. I've said more on the relevant talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment on Garvey's roll as you have explicitly stated it. Garvey is not a scientific philosopher he is a philosopher of science, that is Garvey philosophises about science but he does not apply the scientific method to his philosophy. In fact his papers object to it's inclusion when it become incompatible with theological conclusions. His first sentence on page 2 of Transcendence as the key issue between naturalism and the Christian concept of God: A dialogue with Richard Dawkins, Stuart Kauffman, and Brian Swimme he states: "The real issue is that human beings cannot live without a ‘sacred canopy’ that provides a system of meaning, defines acceptability and grants authority." and demands that the "sacred canopy" has just as much support as no sacred canopy, so they are equivocally probable. For something to be considered accepted, a given, in science you need the evidence first. You can't just go around saying Morphine helps people to jump higher without evidence and when challenged claim that it's just as likely that Morphine makes people jump higher as it is that has no effect (or a detrimental one) and submit as evidence the fact that you have no evidence and don't intend to gather any evidence on the subject, and thereby conclude your assertion is true or at least equally probable. As another example it is not equally likely that I'm currently physically sitting on 300 trillion U.S. dollars in hundred dollar bills as not, simply because I've provided you with two options doesn't cause the probability to become 50%. I think it is reasonable to believe that the chance that I am seated on a throne made out of $300 trillion US is essentially zero, anyone with scientific training could easily tell you that. This is in fact the argument made by Russell's teapot, not that there is no god, but that there is a burden of evidence associated with establishing a claim, and claims without such support do not require contrary evidence to presume they are simply false.

I don't dispute that many of editors and members of the Editorial advisory board of Ars Desputati (to your point) are philosophers, however the word theologin is more accurate. Here is the list of principle editors:

Marcel Sarot(Utrecht University, The Netherlands)

Primary Interest: Philosophy of Religion, Specific Expertise: passibility, impassibility, suffering, theodicy, evil, attributes of God, philosophy of theology, feelings and emotions, methodolical naturalism, atheism, intelligent design, C.S. Lewis, Current Post: University Teaching post, Pastoral Ministry^[2]

Michael Scott (University of Manchester, UK)

Maarten Wisse (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium)

Research:implications of the canonical status of the Bible as sacred scripture. This resulted in my dissertation.

Themes from the history of theology, the Reformed scholasticism. Several articles and a bundle. The theology of Augustine in conversation with contemporary Trinitarian theology, resulting in a monograph on Augustine's De Trinitate. In a new study I intend to deal with the so-called "Christological turn 'in the dogma of the twentieth century, and correspondingly, the role of the Decalogue in dogmatics.^[3] Blog of Maarten Wisse

Niek Brunsveld (Utrecht University, The Netherlands)

"In 2006, I obtained a degree in Theology at Utrecht University (equivalent of MA), with a major in Meta-Ethics, on the basis of a thesis on the intersection of Philosophy of Religion and Meta-Ethics. In the same year, I also obtained a degree from the Protestant Theological University in Professional Ministerial Education. Subsequently, I received an MA in the Advanced Studies in Theology and Religious Studies from K.U.Leuven (Belgium), with a thesis on Hilary Putnam's refutation of metaphysical realism, in 2007."^[4]

Since all the editors are theologians it is reasonable to believe this is expressly a journal of theology, albeit from a philosophical perspective. The editors in their own biographies state that there is no burden of proof required in the special case of their personal theology, and make no movement to support such claims other than that it should be self evident that no burden of proof is required.

Grimsooth, there are some things you don't understand and some things you are wrong about. You don't understand peer review. NYT does not have it (they have "editorial oversight", which is quite different), but Ars Disputandi does have it. They even have blind peer-review (meaning that the paper is sent to an independent referee who doesn't know who the author is)—this is the highest standard that exists in academia. A worse misunderstanding you have is about the Wikipedia concept of "reliable source". This refers to the intrinsic nature of the source, not to whether it is true or not! You can make a wonderful case that Garvey is wrong, but it counts for nothing beside the fact that he is a professional philosopher writing in an academic journal. The only way that a source like this can be judged as inadmissible would be to demonstrate that other published reliable sources overwhelmingly describe Garvey as sub-standard, and even then it would be battle. There apparently isn't any such testimony anyway, so you are left with nothing. You should give up on that approach. What you can do about it is find sources that (according to them, not according to you) refute Garvey, and cite them as well.

As for the relevance of Garvey's article to our article, I find your reasoning very strange. First, Garvey's article itself says that it is relevant, and we are supposed to follow "published reliable sources". Second, Russell was arguing about religious belief, so any argument against Russell has to also concern religious belief. To exclude an argument on the basis that it contains theological concepts is to a priori close the door to most counterarguments. Look, I share your antipathy towards religious argument masquerading as logic, more than you can imagine. If someone was trying to put a religious commentary into quantum gravity, I'd be on your side. But this is not like that at all. Zero^talk 11:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Zero, and as I said elsewhere this is a religious argument by nature. It is not a scientific argument. Applying scientific reasoning to an argument against belief in God/gods doesn't make it any less an argument against belief in God/gods.Griswaldo (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A minor clarification, I didn't say that Russell's argument was a religious one, only that his argument was about religious belief. A difference between subject and method. Zero^talk 11:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"Religious" as an adjective can be used in multiple ways. It does not de facto mean something is religious in conviction. For the sake clarity I'll be happy not to use it in this particular manner again, but just so you know I do not at all disagree with you in essence. However, to also quibble, there is really no "religious" method when making arguments. One could argue from religious experience, or argue based on religious doctrine, but the method is not religious. This means simply that, depending on the religion and depending on the religious person, certain types of evidence may be deemed acceptable, and that various assumptions about the world may sit at the foundation of the argument. But those premises would not make the method more or less religious than Russel's Teapot. Note also that I said, depending on the religion and this is extremely important here. Unlike science, religion writ large is not based on an underlying premise about the nature of the world. Atheists tend to engage religion as if it does, but that doesn't make it any more true. Different religions have different views of the nature of reality, and indeed different requirements when it comes to what is acceptable as religious argument. So I agree that there may usually be a difference between what is acceptable argument from within any religious POV and from within a scientific POV, but there is no unified "religious method" of argument.Griswaldo (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very helpful. Grimsooth (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)