Talk:Russell's teapot

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russell's teapot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3: 30 days

Atheism Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

Philosophy: Logic / Religion Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of religion

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Occam's Razor is used incorrectly

Occam's Razor only applies if two theories are indistinguishable in their predictions. For example, if someone says gravity causes plans to orbit and another person says an undectable god causes gravity to cause planets orbit. They both make the same prediction, but the latter adds an unnecessary element.

If the competing theories make different predictions, then Occam's razor doesn't apply. Instead you just determine which prediction is correct. 72.220.142.234 (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is paraphrasing Peter Atin use of Occam's razor. See https://archive.org/details/oxfordhandbookof0000clay/page/129/mode/1up?q=occam . Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Could an editor please remove the extra "that", in the sentence: "Occam's razor has been interpreted to mean that that the simpler theory with fewer assertions (i.e., a universe with no supernatural beings) should be the starting point in the discussion rather than the more complex theory." 2A02:8388:293E:3400:15C3:4E96:5D1:D982 (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On removing Gary Gutting

I removed a reference to an opinion piece by philosopher Gary Gutting because our text misrepresented the original, and I didn't see how to make an honest representation fit in context. Contrary to what we wrote, Gutting only argues against what he sees as Richard Dawkins' mishandling of the teapot analogy; contra Dawkins, Gutting argues, the teapot does not support strong atheism, but only agnosticism. I'm enthusiastic about discussing improving and restoring this text, if anyone has suggestions. --causa sui (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good to remove that. It's just another opinion about what Dawkins wrote and is not WP:DUE here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. (I feel like making a joke about gutting the content from Gutting.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about opening sentence

It's been a long time since I read Russell's essay but the opening sentence: "Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others." seems wrong to me. I thought the argument applied to ANY claim, not just unfalsifiable claims. In fact if a claim is unfalsifiable then by definition it isn't scientific and what I recall is that the essay was talking about the scientific worldview applied to all beliefs not just natural science. For example, the teapot hypothesis is not unfalsifiable. With powerful enough telescopes or a robot launched to explore the region it would be possible to examine the region in question and determine whether there was a teapot there or not. The point of the essay as I recall was that for ANY hypothesis (for someone with a scientific worldview), the burden of proof is on the person making the hypothesis. In fact, now that I think of it, I think it has to be that way or the argument is incoherent because if something is really unfalsifiable then by definition you can't provide evidence for or against it. I'm going to leave it as is for now but if I have a chance to dig up the essay and double check I may change it, but I would be interested in what others think. MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A ref in the article leads to a pdf of the essay: [1]https://web.archive.org/web/20160120125330/http://russell.mcmaster.ca/cpbr11p69.pdf

Right before the part that's quoted in our article, Russell writes (about a specific theistic view): "I do not think this view can be proved to be false. I think all that can be said is that there is no positive reason in its favour."

And within our quote, right after the teapot analogy, he states: "But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

Since the essay adresses theological opinions (and only a few other views that are regarded "absurd beliefs" outside the regions where they prevail), I see no reason to believe the analogy to be about more general claims, let alone any that can be considered scientific. Joortje1 (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Paul Chamberlain reference.

can this please be done? For obvious reasons. 2A0A:EF40:15B:2C01:EF5F:B278:708C:B2FF (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not obvious. I have no idea what you have in mind. Largoplazo (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]