User talk:Dylan Hunt
|
My talk page. . .
July 2013
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Tiptoety talk 05:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Mark: Is this block punitive or merely focused on activity on Human Genome? I asked for arbitration, which doesn't seem like the right direction, and had initiated other dispute resolution means (soliciting community opinions), but am blocked from doing so. Is there a way to see dispute resolution while being blocked from editing the page in question? Thanks. Dylan Hunt (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Mad Scientist (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.
social sciences collaboration
[edit]Dylan, this is a repost of an answer I gave to your Teahouse question. Another host told me that since you were blocked (sorry that happened) I should also post the answer here. Feel free to contact me after the block expires if you want to. Here is the original reply:
Greeting Dylan and welcome to the teahouse. First if you are in an edit war stop. Don't keep redoing changes that others have undone. That isn't productive and won't make you look good and while Wikipedia has almost no rules that can't be broken the no edit warring rule is about as strong a guideline as we have. The first thing to do is to try and work things out on the talk page of the article in question. If you can't do that then the next step is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Also, remember that Wikipedia is all about collaboration and compromise. This page is not an official page of Wikipedia, its just kind of meant for a laugh but there is also some good stuff in here that IMO really captures the essence of the site: (it uses some off color language so don't link to it if that offends you) Wikipedia:Apathy On getting other users to take a look, I can offer my opinions if you link me to the page in question. I'm self educated in biology but I understand the basics pretty well, especially the issues related to altruism which is the reason I educated myself on it, I'm also very interested in ethical philosophy and am doing some work on my own for now on the boundaries between ethical philosophy and biology. If you are familiar with authors such as Marc Hauser, Sam Harris, or Scott Atran, people like that. If you are involved in a deep discussion of technical biological issues, things like say molecular biology that would be over my head but if its along the lines I mentioned above I would be interested to take part in the discussion. I know quite a bit about philosophy. Mad Scientist (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Mdebellis. Thank you for the help. Please see Human Genome. I welcome your interest. At the same time, I was looking for something broader than one additional pair of eyes. My intent was to broaden the editorial reviewing to anyone of an anthropological, historical, philosophical bent who knows about and is interested in identity and variation in biology (the genetic code metaphor, genotypes, genomes, etc.). Currently, there are three intensely interested editors who share the same point of view on the subject but who have not been exposed to the idea of types in science. Consequently, they think my contribution is "soapboxing" and/or original research. While I have modified my contribution to make it more true to the sources cited, they do not think there is any connection between my paragraph and the sources cited. People who know there is a large literature on the issue of the implications of the human genome concept will know that the idea of the human genome type is pretty well-known and not my creation. Dylan Hunt (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I looked through the Talk page discussion and I have to say I agree with the other editors. I think I see the point you are making but IMO what you are doing is dropping down into a very specific philosophical discussion that doesn't have all that much to do with the human genome but has a lot to do with basic philosophical questions such as what exactly do we mean by a type (or what computer science people call a class which is more or less a set) and what is our theory of language, are words just conventions or are there some platonic ideals behind them. I think you could have that same discussion on many other topics as well and that's the point. There could be philosophical digressions on most scientific articles but for the most part they aren't appropriate (I would say exceptions would be where there really is some overlap, for example the question of is String Theory science because it may not be falsifiable). It also seemed that the other editors made some specific claims -- that your references don't really support the claim you are making -- that you weren't addressing. All this was just a very quick look so I may be wrong. I didn't add anything to the Talk page discussion because except for agreeing with the other editors I didn't have much to add. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Mad Scientist (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time Mdebellis. If you get the chance, please do suggest an answer to my main question: how do you solicit commentary from a broader community (as advised in dispute resolution)?
- I looked through the Talk page discussion and I have to say I agree with the other editors. I think I see the point you are making but IMO what you are doing is dropping down into a very specific philosophical discussion that doesn't have all that much to do with the human genome but has a lot to do with basic philosophical questions such as what exactly do we mean by a type (or what computer science people call a class which is more or less a set) and what is our theory of language, are words just conventions or are there some platonic ideals behind them. I think you could have that same discussion on many other topics as well and that's the point. There could be philosophical digressions on most scientific articles but for the most part they aren't appropriate (I would say exceptions would be where there really is some overlap, for example the question of is String Theory science because it may not be falsifiable). It also seemed that the other editors made some specific claims -- that your references don't really support the claim you are making -- that you weren't addressing. All this was just a very quick look so I may be wrong. I didn't add anything to the Talk page discussion because except for agreeing with the other editors I didn't have much to add. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Mad Scientist (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the interesting points you raised, I wasn't trying to talk about what a type is, but what type the human genome concept is. [Thinking about this a little more] I think the false impression that I was doing the former was caused by confusing the backstage Talk with the actual contribution I made--I did a lot of philosophizing in the backstage Talk, while I didn't do much at all in the contribution (There might also be a problem with the language I used for the contribution). My basis for adding a section was that there is a lot written on what scientists (and laypersons) take the human genome to be, not to mention the conceptual confusion on whether "the human genome" is based on a reference sequence or whether it is something of more general nature--an important distinction for this article, but not one that can be decided for all people. As a side note, I don't understand your exception regarding the falsifiability of String Theory or why that would bear on "how philosophical can you get" since that caveat is fairly widely applicable.
- Regarding basic procedures, I might be missing something about Wikipedia practice. Whereas I was making iterative and progressive changes on the article page in response to the other editors' substantive objections (i.e., source accuracy), they were making universal reverts. If that is the spirit of Wikipedia, it is unfortunate. Even if that is not supposed to be the WP spirit, recent experience indicates that it probably is, making the ideal... well... "philosophical". Thanks again, Dylan Hunt (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding procedures, unfortunately I can't help. I haven't done that much editing and have never been in a dispute that couldn't be resolved by the people involved working through things on the talk page. I linked to the dispute resolution page above which is where I would suggest you go if you want to pursue this more (which I would recommend not doing but of course its your choice). Regarding the type question, either way whether the question is "what kind of type is the human genome" or "is the human genome a type" that seems to me to be a philosophical question. I could see how in a philosophical discussion about types, sets, etc. the human genome would be a great example to use, but to my knowledge there is no great controversy in the world of biology about the question. That was my point about String Theory. There is considerable controversy about the question if String Theory is testable and hence is String Theory even science. So IMO some talk about falsifiability, testability, Kuhn, etc. would be appropriate for the String Theory article, the criticism I was making before about scientists not being so concerned about the issue doesn't apply to String Theory. If you don't mind some free advise I suggest you turn your energies to some of the articles on philosophy, on philosophy of language, philosophy of science, etc. I think those issues might make more sense there and from my recollection many of those articles need work. Mad Scientist (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I could see how a discussion of whether types are equivalent to classes, whether the former is an epistemological concept or a more general concept like class, etc. would be unnecessarily philosophical (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/#SciEveDis for the epistemological notion of type that pertains to science [which was not provided in my contribution, for obvious reasons]). However, in my contribution, I provided citations to "the great controversy in the world of biology about the question". The work was done, for any who wanted to enlighten themselves, and the Gang of 3 editors clearly couldn't be bothered. Anyway, with editors like "I, Jethrobot" so far and few between, and the vast majority like "Agricolae", I think I have spent enough time on Wikipedia and will hope that the concessions I gained will lead by inches to an improved article in the future. I will turn my energies to getting something published in "the real world" ;) . Dylan Hunt (talk)
- First on the types, oh btw great link, I love that site, but you linked to a philosophy site not a biology site. If there were any serious discussion about types and the human genome it most likely would have been on the Richard Dawkins site and I spend way too much time on that site and have never seen anything like that. Of course that's just a popular site but a journal of biology would be even better. But you don't provide a compelling argument if the best link you can give that the issue is relevant to biology is a link to one of the best philosophy web sites ever. On Wikipedia sorry you feel that way and I hope you rethink. You are obviously smart and we need people like you. Mad Scientist (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't know we were having a debate. I sent you something about philosophy because you expressed an interest in philosophy. I wasn't trying to compel your opinion about human genomes in any particular direction. If you wanted to consider the merits of my contribution, wouldn't it have made more sense to look at the actual contribution? Maybe the placement of the URL was confusing. Wikipedia might need better editors, but I don't think there is any "we" there. Dylan Hunt (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- First on the types, oh btw great link, I love that site, but you linked to a philosophy site not a biology site. If there were any serious discussion about types and the human genome it most likely would have been on the Richard Dawkins site and I spend way too much time on that site and have never seen anything like that. Of course that's just a popular site but a journal of biology would be even better. But you don't provide a compelling argument if the best link you can give that the issue is relevant to biology is a link to one of the best philosophy web sites ever. On Wikipedia sorry you feel that way and I hope you rethink. You are obviously smart and we need people like you. Mad Scientist (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I could see how a discussion of whether types are equivalent to classes, whether the former is an epistemological concept or a more general concept like class, etc. would be unnecessarily philosophical (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/#SciEveDis for the epistemological notion of type that pertains to science [which was not provided in my contribution, for obvious reasons]). However, in my contribution, I provided citations to "the great controversy in the world of biology about the question". The work was done, for any who wanted to enlighten themselves, and the Gang of 3 editors clearly couldn't be bothered. Anyway, with editors like "I, Jethrobot" so far and few between, and the vast majority like "Agricolae", I think I have spent enough time on Wikipedia and will hope that the concessions I gained will lead by inches to an improved article in the future. I will turn my energies to getting something published in "the real world" ;) . Dylan Hunt (talk)
- Regarding procedures, unfortunately I can't help. I haven't done that much editing and have never been in a dispute that couldn't be resolved by the people involved working through things on the talk page. I linked to the dispute resolution page above which is where I would suggest you go if you want to pursue this more (which I would recommend not doing but of course its your choice). Regarding the type question, either way whether the question is "what kind of type is the human genome" or "is the human genome a type" that seems to me to be a philosophical question. I could see how in a philosophical discussion about types, sets, etc. the human genome would be a great example to use, but to my knowledge there is no great controversy in the world of biology about the question. That was my point about String Theory. There is considerable controversy about the question if String Theory is testable and hence is String Theory even science. So IMO some talk about falsifiability, testability, Kuhn, etc. would be appropriate for the String Theory article, the criticism I was making before about scientists not being so concerned about the issue doesn't apply to String Theory. If you don't mind some free advise I suggest you turn your energies to some of the articles on philosophy, on philosophy of language, philosophy of science, etc. I think those issues might make more sense there and from my recollection many of those articles need work. Mad Scientist (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding basic procedures, I might be missing something about Wikipedia practice. Whereas I was making iterative and progressive changes on the article page in response to the other editors' substantive objections (i.e., source accuracy), they were making universal reverts. If that is the spirit of Wikipedia, it is unfortunate. Even if that is not supposed to be the WP spirit, recent experience indicates that it probably is, making the ideal... well... "philosophical". Thanks again, Dylan Hunt (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Talk back
[edit]
Message added 18:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.