Essay talk:Intelligent Design

Thanks Shagie!-caius (soldier) 13:47, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Is "manufactroversy" a protologism? Sorry couldn't think of anything smart to say. Good job!, but Ed will probably still be wearing his tinfoil hat when the sun rises tomorrow.--Angband 13:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

It's a term the NCSE is trying to promote to describe ID & climate change denialism. I like it, but it could be more elegant...-caius (soldier) 14:00, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

There are still some other format questions.

• In the intro, you've got a (#) list inline. This might be expanded out to a proper # list that is not inlined.
• For supplement I went with a <u></u> rather than a '' - I'm not sure if you wanted that underlined or italics. I went with the most obvious transformation (I use '/' to indicate italics in email - That is /really/ big.)
• For Structure of Scientific Revolutions - might consider an Amazon link for that - just to make it easier for someone with an open mind to buy a copy of it.
• "One of my socks gave you a good link to follow to learn about it." - link?

--Shagie 14:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Possibly biased

I understand this is an essay and consequently - perhaps even fortunately - not RW policy; but it seems to be written from the point of view that science is in some way "right". In fact science is only one of a myriad ways of looking at the world. Is "art" "right"? Is "science" more valid that "art"? Tolerance 14:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

As an artist, I can say that art is a way of viewing the world, not explaining it. Art is about points of view and often about subjectivity, but doesn't tell you a damn thing about how or why planets stay in their orbit or why your oven heats food. It says the sky is blue, how you feel about the sky being blue, and compares things to the blue sky, but says not a word about why the sky is blue. You're comparing apples to Pontiacs, apparently in an attempt to invalidate science. Nice try, but no. --Kels 15:00, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

You got that right, honey. There are many ways to view the world. JSCHLAFLY 15:01, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

There are indeed. What do we do fi ther is a conflict between science and art in that case? We must simply acknowledge the Difference and walk on. the same with Religion and science.Tolerance 15:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Science and art inhabit separate domains and can each do their own thing. As long as Religion stays out of the domain of science it can do whatever it wants.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:15, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Agreed with Susan. Seriously, Tolerance, that's an embarrassingly stupid comment. Science is about what can be studied emperically. Art is about communicating ideas. Please give me some solid examples of a conflict between science and art before I'll take you seriously. --Kels 15:16, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Are you suggesting that Science is not capable of Communicating Ideas?Tolerance 15:39, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Science is about communicating a predictive description of phenomena. Science is not about trying to make you cry or be happy or show how beautiful the naked female form is. --Shagie 15:52, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

A painting can do a very nice job of capturing a sunset on something more tangible than a memory. However, I do not know of any school of painting that deals with what are the necessary conditions for alpenglow nor the optical mechanics to describe what is being done to the light. Art does a very poor job as to describing why a polarization filter changes intensity of the blue of the sky that is used by many photographers. Science is about descriptions and predictions. Make an observation, come up with a 'why' that is true, see what else that 'why' predicts, search to see if you can find any of those being the case or not the case. Repeat. That is not the artistic process - that is the scientific method. Artists aren't trying to answer those questions so there is no conflict. --Shagie 15:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)