Talk:Paul Davies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Erdos Number?
Davies' Erdos number is listed as 3 in the article, but the link at the bottom of the page says he has Erdos number 4. Can somebody provide a source for this? Dkostic 06:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
How is his Erdos Number (4) relevant? Harry.Erwin 20:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I received email from Jerry Grossman, Director of the Erdos Project, which confirms that his Erdos number is three. I have inserted a footnote with the path that Jerry supplied to me documenting this fact.
- Whether or not it is relevant is another question. Bill Jefferys (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Linda Christas
What editor out there has a problem with listing Dr. Davies acceptance of a Chair for science and philosophy at our school. Every time a student adds the information, an editor (could only be from a rival school already on Wikipedia) deletes the information. For Pete sake, Wikipedia won't even allow our school a listing. What kind of prejudice are we experiencing here? What, you don't like high schools or what? Somebody at Wikipedia is wearing a hair shirt for Linda Christas Academy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.227.237 (talk • contribs)
-
- I'm not the editor that has done the removals, but I support them whole heartedly. Why? Because when I spoke with one of the then current members of the board several months ago I found that her involvement with Linda Christas had consisted of the following conversation: "Do you want to be listed as a board member of our school?" "Sure, why not". Total length of involvement: 2 minutes, tops. I can only assume that the other "board members" are listed for similar exchanges. A casual conversation on that level hardly rates any sort of focus on a Wikipedia bio. If what I said doesn't apply to other board members, then let me know and I'll contact them for verification as well. - Richfife 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dawkins quote
I don't see how it belongs here. Dawkins - not a physician - makes an attack on Davies' philosophical leanings, not his scientific work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.223.162 (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- C'mon man, this is Wikipedia we're talking about here! You know...that website "encyclopedia" whose editing population contains 4x as many atheists/agnostics/anti-religious/skeptics as the rest of the country. You're holding Wikipedia with too high standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.170.73 (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, I'll remove the entire "criticism" section while I'm at it. Last time I checked, an encyclopedia isn't supposed to have criticism sections in it. Of course, Richard Dawkins doesn't have such a section in his article...go figure. I guess Wikipedia maintains some amount dignity when it has to.
-
- Since Davies is famous for his popular writing on philosophical topics, some response from his peers is entirely appropriate. I re-added this material under the heading of Deism.
-
-
- Dawkins has no authority to be holding forth as an authority on another scientist's philosophical opinions, and as a zoologist by training, is hardly one of Davies's 'peers'. I have deleted the 'criticisms' section of this article, as it implies that Dawkins represents a consensus opinion in the scientific or philosophic community, which he certainly does not. That he has published a popular polemic is immaterial.
-
[edit] My edits
Stuart.allie, you reverted my edit and commented:
| “ | You reverted my edits to the page about Paul Davies with the comment "not a soapbox, duh", which I presume to mean that you thought my edits were in some way inaccurate. However, the article was inaccurate in referring to Davies as a physicist. He has not worked in physics for more than 20 years. He was a physicist, but he is not one now, hence my correction to the article. He has not published articles in peer-reviewed physics journals relating to new research in physics since the mid 80's. If you check Davies own bibliography you will find this to be true. Please do not change my edits without evidence to support your actions. User:Stuart.Allie —Preceding comment was added at 05:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | ” |
However, I have re-looked at this issue and at Davies' bibliography. I don't see how requiring that to be listed as "scientist" in this template, one must currently be publishing, is appropriate here. The template this text is placed in, infobox scientist, is also used for Albert Einstein, for example, and guess what? It says "Physicist". I suppose, by your logic, it should say "Dead". I am re-editting this to emphasize that he also writes. People want to know what field he writes about. I am also changing the language of the Scientific Research section back to what I'd put originally, with some changes, so as not to slant this article in anti-popular-writing sort of way, shall we say? If you want to point out that Davies's recent efforts have been writing and theorizing, rather than in doing actual fieldwork, fine.... put that in the intro. Or if you want to add dates to the research section, do that. It is irrelevant to ~what~ his research has been about.
I'm also editing the ridiculous statement in the first sentence "holds the position of College Professor..." ... almost missed that one! Friarslantern (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

