The process

From Reconciling understandings of Scripture and Science
Jump to navigationJump to search
Note: this formal process for reaching conclusions was carefully worked out by us at Sutherland to be fair to all points of view, but did not have enough support to continue.

As a result our focus has been on gathering arguments for the various views, not on reaching conclusions.

Our agreed process for dealing with the "problems that undoubtedly exist"

In summary:

  1. a topic is nominated →
  2. critical appraisal →
  3. endorsement by editors →
  4. formulation as a "Reconciliation Challenge", "Question of Fact", or "Problem"
  5. second endorsement by editors →
  6. free discussion →
  7. our conclusions →
  8. deliverables

In detail:

Our process
Nomination of a PQRC topic Someone nominates a "PQRC" – a brief outline of a Problem, Question or general "Reconciliation Challenge" consistent with the task.
Critical appraisal A critical appraisal of the PQRC as nominated, possibly involving rewriting it to achieve endorsement. See the format for Critical appraisal at Template:CriticalAppraisal.
Endorsement by editors A majority of editors agrees (template 1 below) that it is an accurate statement of an aspect of our task, and is accurately classified as Reconciliation Challenge, Question of Fact, or general Problem.
Formulation as a "PQRC" Problem A general problem is described from a neutral point of view.
Question A question of fact is put in neutral language.
Reconciliation Challenge Relevant understanding(s) of Scripture and discoveries of Science are described, with a summary of the "problem reconciling them" as per our task. This can be reworked if necessary to facilitate discussion and resolution. See the Reconciliation Challenge format at Template:RC.
Second endorsement by editors A majority of editors agrees that that we have an accurate statement of the "problem" as per Resolution 1 of our task.
Free discussion Beginning from the Free discussion section of the Reconciliation Challenge template, discussion can take place anywhere in the wiki and be linked back. This phase finishes when a majority of editors agrees.
Final endorsement A majority of editors agrees that it is time to form conclusions on the topic.
Formulation of conclusions We write up our conclusions following points 1 to 5 of Formal decision making, referring only to material that is already in the wiki, or is unanimously agreed. Conclusions should cover the first three points of the Scope as per our task. Conclusions do not need to be unanimous, and may be left in a preliminary state.
Deliverables The wiki itself is the main deliverable, but we watch for other opportunities to create deliverables.
Template (1) – Editors' endorsement
We agree that this is an accurate statement of an aspect of our task.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Older discussion about the process

We need to start a list of problems (or "difficulties" in reconciling Scripture and Science - see the "task".) Bruce (talk)

Then we can prioritise which ones to work on first. Prue (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that resolutions of individual problems, or answers to questions, are not necessarily within the scope of our task, which requires an "overview of the many sides of the discussion". Nevertheless here is what a formal structured decision might look like and here is what a procedure for making it might look like. Bruce (talk)

See also Decisions to make about our modus operandi.