Encyclopedia > Talk:Gaia theory
Talk:Gaia theory
Gaia: This is a disambiguation page. The term Gaia may refer to
Gaia (mythology)[?] - Discussion of the Greek and Roman goddeess.
Gaia theory - A group of scientific theories about how life on Earth may regulate the planet's biosphere to make it more hospitable to life. This discusses all scientific views on the subject in general, including the views of Drs. James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, etc.
Gaia hypothesis- A subset of the above article; this is a discussion of Dr. James Lovelock's ideas on Gaia theory.
Gaia theory analogues[?] - A discussion of proto-scientific, mystical and religious views that some people believe are related to Gaia theory.
Gaians - A discussion of the small left-wing radical political and environmentalist group.
(Of course, other articles could be made as well, if needed.)
We must not push mystical, political or religious ideology into our science articles on Gaia theory, Biological evolution, or Quantum Mechanics, etc. All I am asking is that we continue to follow the same disambiguation and NPOV policy that we also have followed. Is this clear? RK 22:47 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
2 quick points. 1) I think everybody here is missing a common scientific manner of using "Gaia theory". I believe many use it like "game theory." As in, they don't always talk about "a game theory" or "the game theory." 2) Separate articles is not the only precedent on Wikipedia. See neutral theory of molecular evolution. I believe practically one of the first things to say about this scientific theory is that a whole lot of non-scientists took it as a direct challenge to Darwin, even though it appears that it's authors did not mean it to be. I put it in the first paragraph. 168... 00:11 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Yes basically, it boils down to the fact that people often use the same term to describe different things. That is why we need disambiguation. Unfortunately, Anthere still will npot accept any disambiguation between her political and religious beliefs, and an article solely on science. I hope she changes her mind. Barring that, if we could get just one or two more people to join in and explain why we must have disambiguation, this whole issue couldbe solved in a day or two. RK 14:49 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The distinction is not between "political and religious beliefs" and "solely on science". In fact, there's a strong argument that scientific method is simply not applicable to Gaia theory. The usual controls and reproducibility of hard science are impossible to apply, as there is only one Earth or similar large biosphere on hand - nothing to compare it with.
- Um, Gaia theory makes testable predictions. Some of these predictions in fact have been tested. We have extensive data available on many planets within our solar system, remember? Other predictions can be tested in principle, should data become available on the atmospheres of planets outside of our solar system. I can't imagine what led you to believe otherwise. RK 15:28 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
One can write peer-reviewed articles but that simply gets one to consensus of a gang of scientists - not necessarily better than consensus decision making by oh say Gaians or Green Parties. Gaia theory even in the strict sense of Lovelock and Margulis is at best "soft science" like economics, and may be best approached through ideas like value of Earth.
- That is false. See above. Many of this theory's predictions can and are tested. You are pushing your personal beliefs into a scientific issue.
Trying to deal with the whole planet via biology seems like greedy reductionism, at best, and scientism at worst. That said, the division seems reasonable, but maybe Gaia model[?] is better than "theory" or "theory analogues". If you think one theory is oh say science rather than conspiracy theory, refer to the science that accepts that theory, as in Gaia theory (biology) or Gaia theory (economics)[?] or Gaia theory (atmospheric physics)[?]. There might be Gaia theory (conpsiracy)[?] as well. But don't offer scientists special status, or they'll kill the planet trying to see if it's alive. ;-)
- It is inappropriate to make personal attacks on all scientists, slandering them as "greedy reductionists". What is your purpose writing here? Do you want to help write an article on science, or just slander scientists? The former is acceptable, the latter is not. Or are you interested in writing about mysticial, religious and political theories that are related to Gaia theory? If so, fine. Finally, your claim that science is no different from conspiracy theory leads me to believe that you are trolling.
The banned ex-user "24" seems to be back: hold on a moment, and I'll do a bit of fixing-up. -- The Anome 15:36 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Any help is welcome to solve this article issue The Anome. You are most welcome to add anything relevant. Apparently you are not aware that 142 edits are now accepted ? Of course, we would not delete information from a non-banned user would we ? :-))) User:anthere
RK, is it your position that no content whatsoever pertaining to the broader/new-agey meaning of "Gaia theory" is acceptable in an article that covers what Earth scientists mean when they use the term? Disambiguation, of course, can take place in a single article discussing all of the meanings in depth. Also as I posted before, it's possibile in principle to write multiple articles that each say a little about the subject of the other. What's your stand on these options? For that matter, Anthere, what's yours? 168...
- It is only my position that no extensive discussion of mystical, religious, new-age meanings of Gaia theory should be included within the article focusing on science. However, these other views certainly can be mentioned, briefly summarized, and then provide a series of links to related articles specifically on these topics. (In fact, this article already does that.) Also, if we do set up a disambiguation page, then all of these ideas (see above) would be listed there as well. (We can and probably should have both.) RK 15:18 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I suspect that most people on the street, if one asked them, would guess that more crystal worshipers use the term "Gaia theory" than do scientists. If you, RK, are indeed determined to have separate and non-overlapping articles, and if that desire reflects simply a principled opposition to this popular perception of who owns the term and what it means, I sympathasize, but I have to say I disagree with your principle. 168... 01:40 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be a good reason to have disambiguation? What do you think of the proposed scheme? RK 15:21 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Your last proposed set of article titles (if that's what you mean by "scheme", RK) I didn't like much, because you don't allow the Gaian's to call their ideas "Gaia theories," which isn't fair, my limited Web surfing suggests, because they do get to call them Gaia theories everywhere else they go in the world. 168...
- That is an incorrect reading of my position. In fact, I explicitly stated that I do not mind having articles which mention this. I only mind confusing mystic beliefs with an article on science by jamming them both into the same article. That is why we need disambiguation. RK 21:36 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Regarding whether to have one, multiple, and/or overlapping articles, I offered my opinion and what it depends on above. But in summary I think it would be appropriate to put at least some of the new-agey meaning--carefully delineated and disambiguated--in the article about the Earth science concepts.
- And as I said many times before, I will agree to this. In fact, this article does already do this, and not just in an off-hand way. Right at the beginning there are multiple paragraphs about this. I think you may have overlooked this part of the article. RK
What if polls showed that two thirds of Americans believe that a major function of the Air Force was UFO research? You could make separate Wiki articles entitled "Air Force" and "UFO research," but you would be doing a disservice to Sri Lankans who come to Wikipedia to learn about the U.S. Airforce and its role in American society. Note that my view rests on the numbers: A lot of people have to believe that "Air Force" implies UFO research, not just one wierdo. But I suspect that the large-number standard applies to "Gaia theory." Also, to me and I suspect to many other potential readers, it's just interesting that "Gaia theory" has been taken up by non-scientists to mean these other things. Obviously this fact pushes your buttons, RK. If you were able to look at it another way, you'd find it merely fascinating and not infuriating.168... 18:38 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you think we disagree. Again, I totally agree with you on all these points! There are many (many!) people who think that the U.S. Air Force does a lot of secret research on alien UFOs! And I agree with you that it would be confusing (and misleading) to allow this belief to dictate how we write our encyclopedia article on the U.S. Air Force. Our article on the U.S. Air Force should not concentrate on this view, no matter how popular it is. At the same time, there is room in Wikipedia to discuss this issue; we could briefly mention this view in the U.S. Air Force article, and link to those groups who have such views. In those related articles we could discuss this issue in more depth. So far, I think we are in total agreement. All I am saying is that the same is true here. Our article on James Lovelock's Gaia theory (also called Gaia hypothesis) should concentrate on his scientific research and the views on other scientists on this area. At the same time, there is room in Wikipedia to discuss how other groups have come to adopt Gaia theory for their own purposes, and how thus term has come to be used in popular culture. I agree with you that we could mention all this view in the Gaia theory article, and link to those groups who have such views. (In fact, is that not already what we have?) At the moment, I am unsure of what you disagree with, because I agree with everything you are writing. RK 21:36 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The previous Gaia theory article was mostly about these other meanings, but was still introducing a good deal of the "scientific" aspect to it. It allowed to have a quite self-standing separated article on biology aspect, without confusion with other meanings. Which was why I appreciated it. It allowed to have a central article, from which all the different aspects related to the gaia theory could radiate. Sticking to an entirely scientific article would just break the strong relations between the different parts of the concept. The interdependances would not be so easy to understand to the curious reader.
It would also be unfair to entirely neglect these other meanings just to favor the scientific consideration. I would further add that this article can't be limited to scientific "proof" anyway, as some of the strongest points of the theory likely couldnot ever be proved (perhaps the fact the biomass is acting to support its own life, or even that the biomass is acting consciously).
It would since appear natural to me to consider this article is thus not only about scientific claims or rebute, but should also introduce to the other considerations as well. As 168 stated, many readers will expect an article dealing with the concept as they are aware of it. We should try to avoid surprising and perhaps disappointing them. I doubt disambuigation would suffice to direct them to the right article, and they might think "cheated" on their own beliefs (however, I support disambuigation as RK proposed). It was also because Lovelock didnot want to be confused by those believing in Gaia consciouness (to whom he had given food supporting their belief), that he backed up from his first hypothesis much more revolutionary ideas. This is typically something that can really be understood through both the understanding of the weight he had over these people and his experiments timeline.
Two articles, each of them seriously enough introducing the other meanings appear to be the option to me. Mystical, religious, political meanings of Gaia theory should be quite fairly introduced, but these three should form the core of one article, not of a myriad of several articles, all disconnected. User:anthere
- I do not see why the proposed disambiguation scheme would disfavor certain groups. We have articles on religion and science, on science alone, and on religion alone. No one argues that the existence of multiple articles discriminates against those with religious views; no one argues that this discriminate against those with scientific views. Heck, we have over 100,000 separate articles. We use in-article hyperlinks, "See also", discussions with links, and disambiguation pages to connect related subjects. This has never been an issue of contention on other articles. Of course, I agree with your concerns, and we need to agree on how to do this clearly and fairly.
- To make clear, I will agree with you that the articles dealing with science should refer to how Gaia theory is viewed by other groups, and should link to them (and vice-versa.) In fact, to a substantial degree this temporary version of the article already does that. You also write "Mystical, religious, political meanings of Gaia theory should be quite fairly introduced, but these three should form the core of one article, not of a myriad of several articles, all disconnected." Ok, I will agree with you on this as well. Sounds fine by me. RK 21:41 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
To me, this seems like a promising degree of agreement and/or compromise going on between you two, RK and Anthere. Since nobody else has stepped in lately to mediate, I'll go ahead myself and raise the question: How would you like to proceed from here? It sounds from your recent post, RK, that you view the current version as having some merit, despite it having content that Anthere wants. Do you also find merit in the current version, Anthere? If so, I suppose that would make the current version a good starting point (once somebody unprotects it). If you both agree that the current version is a good starting point, perhaps it would be useful for you each to describe what changes you would need to see in it to feel satisfied (for example, I suggested putting the section on the ancient Gaian ideas farther along into the article). 168... 02:06 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
First, I just archived a considerable amount of text. Unfortunately, in the process a considerable amount of text disappeared. I do not understand what happened. I went back in the page history to the version prior to my edit (the previous contributor was 168) and the entire talk page prior to my edit appeared. But when I tried to edit it, to retreive the lost material, it disappeared. I hope someone can retreive this material. This is especially important because the missing material includes 168's extraordinarily constructive intervention.
Second, that material ended with some agreement between RK and Anthere that there is a value to disambiguation, and an invitation from 168 for suggestions. I suggest three:
- Gaia (Godess in classical mythology)[?]
- Gaia theory (science)[?]
- Gaia theory (New age and political environmental movements)[?]
I think I just restored all of the deleted material--assuming it was everything that followed the truncated last sentence of your last post, SLR. 168... 03:27 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, Slrubenstein
RK, I just noticed that I overlooked some of your intercalated replies to my posts. Sorry that I was slow to understand your position. One thing: you seem to have misread me above. I think that if a significant proportion of people thinks that a major function of the Air Force is UFO research, then the Air Force article should say something about UFO research (as well as providing a link out to a longer article on UFO research in the Air Force, assuming there's enough to be said to justify a second, independent article). 168... 17:52 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I think I understood that; I am just concerned with proportions. We could literally write a hundred or more pages on the history, structure and impact of the U.S. Air Force, all of which would be relevant, as the U.S. Air Force actually exists. We could also the same amount of material on the beliefs of various writers and groups who truly believe that the U.S. Air Force does UFO research on extraterrestrial UFOS and aliens. My concern is that this would misleading. Would the article be on the Air Force, or on how people in certain groups views the Air Force? These are two different subjects. As such, I would agree with you that the main Air Force article could (Ok, should) have a paragraph discussing these views, and could provide a number of links to other articles on this subject. When people come to an encyclopedia for serious research on the U.S. Air Force (or anything else), many people would be dismayed if it contained 25% or 50% material on these side-topics! Similarly, if people looked wanted to learn about the science of Quantum Mechanics, Biological Evolution or Gaia theory, they would be confused, if not dismayed, to see lots of discussion about mystical, religious or political beliefs. These are all valid subjects, but they are distinct subjects. Thus, these topics should have paragraphs discussing these views, and can provide a number of links to other articles on this subject. RK 00:59 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Minor point: In order to stay consistent with other Wikipedia articles, we should shorten the proposed "Gaia (Godess in classical mythology)" to just "Gaia (mythology)". Also, I changed some upper-case letters to lower case letters for the proposed "Gaia theory (New age and political environmental movements)"; because that is how most Wikipedia titles seem to work (unless, of course, the article title is a phrase that commonly does include capital letters, like the Federal Bureau of Investigation.) RK 00:59 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Above, before the recent flurry of archiving, deletion and restoration of posts from this page, I raised the question how to proceed from here in terms of the Gaia theory article, but I just had another idea. How about a set of articles like so:
- Gaia (mythology)[?]
- Gaia (science)[?] - on Lovelock and decendant hard-science theories
- Gaia (mystical, social and environmental)[?] - on ancient ideas and their modern, Lovelock-inspired kin, including the supposition that the Earth is conscious and a discussion of scientific support and links out to the hard-science articles
- Gaia- a simple directory listing of the others
?
The Gaia theory article then could be buried and destroyed, as may be befitting a source of such controversy, and yet people could still use the term "Gaia theory" with abandon in the different articles.
Alternatively, as I was assuming before, Gaia theory might be retained as as a broad hybrid article. It seemed to me like there might be enough agreement to start discussion on how to proceed along that line, but the scheme I proposed above (which to me seems much the same as RK's and/or SLR's, just minus the fuss over the term "Gaia theory") seems a lot less trouble. I propose it only because I thought it would be more acceptable to Anthere. Anthere? 168... 02:49 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I finally found a proper browser that allows me to edit long pages :-).
I think it would be a bad idea to dump the Gaia theory page. It is too much of a famous term not to use it. The previous situation where it was a broad hybrid article, introducing all aspects, and offering side articles such as the Gaia theory (biology) or Gaians was to me the best option. But since RK does agree with it, better is to give up on this option. I would prefer that we don't use Gaia (science), as it could lead to reject from the article what has not been proved, and could sligtly imply the other articles have little basis. Given the controversial aspects of the theory, it has a smell of pov.
Then, Gaia being a disamb is fine
Gaia (mythology)[?] is ok too (short title, certainly not long one)
Gaia theory would be essentially about biology and science (as the Gaia theory (biology) was before, but would include a paragraph about the second meaning as well, which would orient readers to
Gaia (mystical, social and environmental)[?] (which would also include the political aspect)
It appears to me we agree on where the information should be. Do we on naming ? Is it clear the last one will not exclude political aspects, but be ultimately a coherent whole ?
- Anthere's idea sounds fine by me. (And we would also still have the Gaian article). What do you think, 168, Slrubestein, others?
AOK by me.168... 17:56 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I'd just like to congratulate everyone for working together constructively on this issue. I'm unprotecting the pages now. --Dante Alighieri 20:04 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Far be it for me to muck with a carefully crafted compromise, but I have once concern regarding Anthere{s most recent suggestion, and another suggestion. My concern with calling the article on Gaia in biology and science "theory" is that this implies that only positivist scientists have the right to use theory. Now, I myself prefer narrow definitions of terms, and when I use the word "theory" I try to use it in as proecise and scientific a way as possible. My concern is not personaly, it is purely NPOV -- aren{t there people out there who use "Gaia theory" in non-scientific ways? My suggestion would be to follow 168s proposal (or perhaps it was RKs most recent, I am a little mixed up)
- Gaia (mythology)[?]
- Gaia (science)[?] - on Lovelock and decendant hard-science theories
- Gaia (mystical, social and environmental)[?] - on ancient ideas and their modern, Lovelock-inspired kin, including the supposition that the Earth is conscious and a discussion of scientific support and links out to the hard-science articles
- Gaia- a simple directory listing of the others
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|