Decisions to make about our modus operandi
Please note: "PQRC" stands for "Problem/Question/Reconciliation Challenge" — for our thinking behind it, see here.
(I've copied these points from where they have been raised. Bruce)
Discussion etc arising in Critical Appraisal of PQRCs
Should discussion and chit-chat at this point go into the Discussion page if it gets extensive? Maybe if the one who proposes the PQRC disagrees with the critique, s/he should put in a note to say "Taking this to the Discussion page".
- User:Paul — Perhaps this would be indicative that the PQRC is too broad and may need some dissection into smaller, more focussed PQRCs. Use of the discussion page would assist with this. Paul (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. — BP
When we iterate through PQRC-building and Critical Appraisal, how to organise it?
Does it matter if the CA page gets jumbled?
- Bruce — I say no, what matters is that we end up with an acceptable PQRC. If the process of knocking it into shape is of interest, it can be seen through the "View history" tab.
What to do with late objections?
PQRC 1 (Reconciliation challenge: a literal single male ancestor, or modern science? (Acts 17:26)) was agreed to on 1 May 2018 by the process proposed here on 13th May after being raised for discussion earlier by email.
Conclusions were written up by three of us during the first week of June 2018, following which (on 9th June) User:Colin has made a late objection on the main page:
This was not agreed by all of the working group.
He's also put in another objection to the heading "Christadelphians arguing against any resolution" as clarified in the note "The following insist that Acts 17:26 must refer to a sole progenitor Adam, thus questioning that any reconciliation is possible as per the task in hand." :-
This heading is disparaging of Christadelphian writers of some note who wrote about this subject, expounding the Scriptural weight of its statements of truth. To say they are against resolution in terms of the "task" is grossly unfair, especially as they are not alive to answer this aspersion. Colin (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- User:Paul — To me Christadelphian writers should be treated as Commentaries and should only be referenced if they are precisely on topic (in our opinion). Often Christadelphian writers may be quoted as if they have some special authority. Are they not as we are; perhaps a little more focussed on their subject matter? We are all required to sift the Scriptures and that will mean a variety of interpretations and of wisdom and intellect being applied to this most precious and amazing Word of God. I feel that Christadelphian writers should be relegated to "the end" as additional or alternative commentaries. Paul (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- BP — Hmm. Our task does focus on difficulties that "undoubtedly exist within our community" and it's "our various understandings of Scripture ..." If we gather samples from a variety of Christadelphian points of view, that's relevant and instructive, no?
I've moved the procedural objection to the Main/Discussion page, and the one about the "disparaging ... grossly unfair ... aspersion" to Talk:Reconciliation challenge: a literal single male ancestor, or modern science? (Acts 17:26) [This was me. — BP]
Questions:
- Is there a distinction to be made between late objections to procedural matters and addition of new arguments, new evidence, etc?
- Assuming that there is,
- How do we want to handle late objections to our modus operandi?
- How do we deal with genuinely new information after conclusions have already been drawn?
- User:Paul — Stick to the current modus operandi. I would suggest an assessment whether a late objection is new in nature or more of the same. Paul (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Endorsements
Do we endorse our own problems? Or should we not think of them as our own once they reach sign off point?
- Bruce — I suggest yes if we have an odd number of active editors and no if we have an even number. In other words, the proposer has a casting vote if the others disagree. Unanimity would be far preferable, though, because proposing a valid PQRC comes at such an early stage in the process. It's worth making an effort for unanimity, but not at the cost of unnecessary delay.
PQRCs that are verbose or have too many quotations
how many quotes are too many in the description of a PQRC? There are more that could be listed in this case, but imo they'd be better left to discussion, because otherwise it might invite questions about relevance. What if you agree with the Hezekiah quote but not the Josiah one, and others disagree, etc.? It might not be more efficient to list relevant verses, either – what if (for the sake of argument) we found that Kings, Chronicles and the NT said three different things about the same incident? (Answering my own question with another question: there could be a subtle misunderstanding or equivocation there, so maybe it should be dealt with here?) On the other hand, "what verses are you referring to?" is a perfectly reasonable question. Should we wing it on common sense?
- Bruce — Let's just add "not too many quotes" to the Focussed criterion: "It has a clear focus, neither too broad nor too narrow, has a small number of relevant quotes and is free of equivocation."
The "P" in PQRC
We need a problem-solving process! See Template_talk:P
The "Q" in PQRC
- (Note 4th August: going ahead experimentally with Template:Q for questions of fact and Biblical interpretation. — Bruce)
Do we need this formalisation for dealing with questions of fact? What about questions about the meanings of words and contested translations?
- Bruce (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC) — The problem is the vast misinformation industry built up around Origins since the 1960's. Pat Moynihan said it all: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts" but that's only a complaint, not a fact! I think we have to make space for alternative facts, strictly labelling what's fact according to mainstream scholarship and what isn't. The same applies to Bible interpretation in the clash of fundamentalist versus scholarly translations and explanations, exposition etc. We can present the alternatives, present their pros and cons, and leave it there.
Philosophy of Science, etc
How to deal with the "conflict theory", unconventional science, pseudo-science and arguments against science in general? From an email: I do not see any room for debating the truth of science (or history) on a page listing a body of scientific evidence on any particular topic. Please keep all claims and arguments that science is bogus as a separate issue. Whether you agree with the process of science or not, scientific evidence is scientific evidence and should be able to be listed without debate about the nature of science. Yes, there needs to be a page on the nature of science, and different attitudes towards it, and the nature of truth, and yes this is going to be a tricky one.
- Bruce — Given that many Christadelphians accept a range of arguments against the legitimacy of particular sciences and scientific methods, and sometimes against science as a whole, such arguments have to be part of the task. See my stub Conflict between Science and Religion. I agree that anti-science should be quarantined to an extent, for example on sub-pages - not that anything is really quarantined in a wiki - but their relevance comes in at the latest stage in the process viz. evaluating arguments and arriving at a conclusion in the form of a Structured decision. It's possible that a majority, minority, individual or unanimous "structured decision" could reject the scientific evidence, and explain why by reference to "conflict theory" ideas documented in the wiki, but we shouldn't be rejecting it without considering it.
"Questioning Mainstream Science"
Bruce (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC) writes:
- Asked by email: Who determines what "pseudoscience" is? There are plenty of scientists who refute evolution.
- For our purposes, I'd propose:
- It's pseudoscience if it contradicts relevant mainstream science, where:
- "mainstream science" is what's taught in the relevant faculties of Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Sydney, Melbourne and Gulargambone universities.
- In my view we are all at liberty to have beliefs that would be classified as pseudoscience by these criteria — many do. Like Heliocentrism they may become generally accepted. Nevertheless it is not reasonable to insist on them as the definitive resolution of a conflict between traditional understandings of Scripture and the discoveries of modern science. They should be freely discussed, in untrammelled and respectful dialogue, but that discussion should not confuse other lines of thought. This was my proposal for organising our discussion:
- My suggestion is that we create a separate "namespace" in the wiki where mainstream science can be freely contested. Everything can link to everything else, so if anyone wants to write about the changing speed of light [1] (for example) they can do so there, and link to it from the main pages. Comments?
| Questioning Mainstream Science | |
 |
link to QMS Index |
- I have followed through on this by setting up the distinct namespace QMS (for "Questioning Mainstream Science") for dealing with arguments against Evolution on scientific grounds. We can index discussions in this namespace on the page Qms:Questioning Mainstream Science. At present pages in the QMS namespace can be edited by any logged-in user.
Proof Texts
[This arose from the first model question.] From an email: Maybe a clearer way to phrase the problem is that [the verse] is used as a "proof text" . . ., and there are many subtleties with translation and assumptions that are overlooked by this argument. Personally, I am not comfortable about engaging with arguments against proof texts as I have a general objection to using verses from the bible as proof texts - I think it encourages reading and interpretation to align with preconceived ideas rather than reading in context for understanding or meditation. That being said, it might make a more useful “deliverable”. I suppose I’d be happy with the problem as a cautionary tale against using proof texts and instead reading in context.
Personal Pages & what to put on them
Bruce (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC) — Should we use the personal pages for position statements, perhaps a bit of biography, and also academic qualifications and special interests to the extent that they are relevant? I think so. The more people we invite to participate the more we'll need to be able to say "Please set up your personal page: the template is already on it."
- User:Jacaf is putting material into a set of subpages, e.g. User:Jacaf/Dating Methods. These can be linked to and from pages in the QMS area as well as the main area.
What contribution from users with "Browser" status?
Bruce (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC) — As email lists, bulletin boards and facebook have shown over the decades, people like to get stuck into discussion about Origins. The wiki is already set to allow editing by registered users only. I suggest we create "Browser" accounts for registered visitors which will allow them to make comments and get into arguments on the Discussion/Talk pages and their own personal pages but not the main pages. Users with full Editor rights can bring brief, relevant and useful material into the main pages without overloading them. (I'm not referring to people we invite to be full editors, by the way. This is for the future.)
How to record joint Conclusions?
See how Conclusions:PQRC 1 is going and my comment at Talk:Conclusions:PQRC 1 Bruce (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- ↑ As elsewhere, for example Henry M. Morris (Institute for Creation Research), Danny R. Faulkner (Answers in Genesis), Carl Weiland (Creation Ministries International)
