Talk:Barbara Forrest

Kitzmiller header

I obviously just added the header/section. I think her participation in the trial is very noteworthy all by itself so it seems to make sense to give it a seperate section versus throwing her testimony in the biography. Feel free to revert or improve. The Thomas Moore Legal Center, the Discovery Institute and William Dembski have all made great efforts to marginalize and publicly attack Forrest. Any opinion on us covering more of that in this article? Mr Christopher 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And I changed the "..was the main witness" to "... was a key witness" (Ken Miller was not exactly a potted plant at the trial). Mr Christopher 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

McLaughlin letter to the editor

WP:DUE states:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.

1. A letter to the editor is not in the least bit prominent.
2. Tom McLaughlin is not, in the least bit, a prominent participant or commentator in the Creation–evolution controversy.

Therefore his letter to the eidstor is not sufficiently prominent to be worth mentioning in this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You are intelligent and no doubt well intentioned, Hrafn, but once in a while you will preserve your own health if you back off and chill. Barbara's lecture itself may not have been significant enough to include, but I put it in. Nonetheless, although I appreciate your point and your close reading of even the notes to the article, one needs to hesitate about editing out the contributions of other users unless a citation is bogus. And now there are more letters, pro and con. Rammer (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn cited the relevant guidelines to you. No need for him to "back off" or "chill" as those terms would mistakenly imply he wasn't in the right to delete the edit, and that he did so in a "hot" manner. Your comments about his health were personal and out of line and not conducive to a collaborative working environment. Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I direct your attention to the opinion stated in WP:RS/N that "Usually letters are only deenmed to be RS if the author has an established independently published reputation in the relevant field." As this opinion is also reflected in (the now defunct) WP:Acceptable sources, it would appear to be long-standing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If so, Aunt Entropy, my sincere apologies to Hrafn. I also said that Hrafn (you apparently know "him"?) is "intelligent" and "well intentioned." Although obligations precluded my attending the lecture, I understand that Dr Forrest knew her stuff and that the question-answer session was interesting and dynamic. The lecture did not happen in a cocoon but had continuing newsworthiness, as evidenced by the fact that Wikipedia's readership can know what is published in the press unless we are opposed to that. Rammer (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Fields" in infobox

Does anyone have any evidence that philosophy of science is a field with which Forrest has expertise? She has an undergraduate degree in English and two advanced degrees in philosophy, but no specialization in philosophy of science. She teaches undergraduate courses in philosophy, but Philosophy of science is actually taught by a colleague. In addition, she testified in Kitzmiller that she was not a philosopher of science. "Philosophy of science" in the infobox should be replaced with "Philosophy." Drrll (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen her listed as a "philosopher of science" in a number of books, she's written journal articles on the subject of methodological naturalism and the academic study of creationism is generally considered to fall under the field of philosophy of science -- so I see no reason to doubt her subfield. One generally receives one's advanced degrees in the general field not a subfield. Can you cite when at Kitzmiller she disavowed being a philosopher of science? (Page number preferred.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We need verification of this fact by someone in a position to say so definitively--Forrest herself, Southeastern Louisiana University, a professional philosophical association, or a journal of philosophy--since it is not clear what training in philosophy of science she has received, since she doesn't teach the subject, and because of her sworn testimony.

Here are the relevant excerpts from Forrest's court testimony (pp. 22-23; 26):

Q. You're not an expert in science, correct?

A. No, I'm not a scientist.

Q. And you have no formal scientific training?

A. No.

...

Q. You're not an expert in the philosophy of science?

A. I'm not a philosopher of science.

Drrll (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct -- which I find more than a little odd given that her cross-examination thereafter (and apparently her direct testimony beforehand) was mostly on subjects within the field of philosophy of science -- the scientific method, methodological naturalism, etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism are not a part of the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science is based on science. But, Metaphysical and methodological naturalism are the basis upon which science is done. Were are talking about two different things here. And the WP pages on these topics are flawed because of that. Some non-philosophers think that the philosophy of science is the foundation for science and science is the foundation for the philosophy of science. But that's not logical. The philosophy of naturalism provides the assumptions required for science to be done. The philosophy of science is based on science which is, in turn, based on naturalism. AshforkAZ (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What a load of cobblers. Please keep your unsubstantiated WP:FRINGE views to yourself. I am quite sure you'd prefer if MN wasn't part of the scientific method and thus PoS, but your wishful thinking has no place in this discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope AshforAZ, the philosophy of science is not "based on science". That statement makes no sense. But anyway, this isn't the place for that discussion. Guettarda (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

please elucidate. AshforkAZ (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM. Guettarda (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A historian of science is well placed to talk about the tools of science, including its philosophical bases, and how these have changed. Guettarda (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara Forrest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116080036/http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf to http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Barbara Forrest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080503031945/http://nosha.secularhumanism.net:80/whoswho.html to http://nosha.secularhumanism.net/whoswho.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712170113/http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-09_pretrial_in_limine_motions/Forrest/2005-09-06_Ds_brief_supporting_motion_in_limine_exclude_Forrest.pdf to http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-09_pretrial_in_limine_motions/Forrest/2005-09-06_Ds_brief_supporting_motion_in_limine_exclude_Forrest.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712170153/http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-09_pretrial_in_limine_motions/Forrest/2005-09-06_Ds_motion_in_limine_exclude_Forrest.pdf to http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-09_pretrial_in_limine_motions/Forrest/2005-09-06_Ds_motion_in_limine_exclude_Forrest.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301063227/http://www.yorkdispatch.com:80/local/ci_4872535 to http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_4872535
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/experts/2005_04_01_Forrest_expert_report_P.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/experts/2005-07-29_Forrest_supplemental_report_P.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)