Talk:Charles Darwin

Active discussions
Charles Darwin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 6, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 24, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 7, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 13, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
December 19, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 18, 2004, February 12, 2009, and February 12, 2018.
Current status: Featured article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information:
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.


Leaning techniqueEdit

I've found this information while I was working on Polish article about Feynman Technique (I'm working on English Translation) I wanted to include the sentence that similar technique was used by Charles Darwin. He was trying to explain what he was working on in simple terms to someone imaginary that came into the room, but I've only have Polish reference (book) and was not able to find a reference about this in English.

Do you know any reference that confirm that?

jcubic (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not familiar, is this the concept referred to in Active recall? Perhaps if you can give some more detail about what Darwin's supposed to have done and when he did it, that might enable s search. . . . dave souza, talk 14:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2020Edit

Charles darwin never earned degrees in science but in ministry, if you are truthful then you would ad the truth 105.225.65.165 (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 13:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Read the article. Note there weren't degrees in science at English unis when he studied there, and he didn't do a degree in "ministry". . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV - Lack of criticismEdit

The current WP article lacks of any reference to the quantitative method of the science founded by Galilei and his closely spiritual brother Isaac Newton. Science is made through numbers and Maths. Einstein said that "all that can't condensed into an equation, can't be told to be science". We don't know the equation of the evolutionism.

Any scientific theory can be reproduced in a lab and controlled, measured as welll as reversed (from the thesis to the hypothesis). The evolutionism is anything of them.
Any scientific theory can predict the existence of previously unknown phaenomena, and it can predict them in a numerical way which enable to anticipate, reproduce and control them. Evolutionism didn't do anything of them. We uniquely know the genetic informatics, after three centuries and nt so closely to the offspring of Darwin.
Until the 1990s, the reliability of a scientific theory was used to be classified into a qualitative 4-levels pattern just based on the points above: reproducibility, measurability, lab controllability, existence of mathematical exact equations (or at least approximate-solvable), prediction and/or control of new unknown measurable phaenomena.
It was also contemplated the presence of a logically-coherent chain of proofs, describing a continuum in accordance with the Newtonian principle Natura non facit saltus (that was also of part of the Newton's thought). The latter rejects the theoretical possibility of any discontinuity (Latin: "saltus") in the human as well as in the natural history. On the opposite side, Museums related to the evolutionism show artificially built models of existinguished species of animals, trying to realize a continous chain of evoluion. are in part or totally To those it can be added the introduction of new useful applications in the everyday life.
Criticism is unconcerned in the current article, with particular regard to the Christian creationism which has similarly a lot of historical and spiritual proofs. It would be useful at least to say that we don't have any numerical equation of the evolutionism in order to be acknowledged from where we come and to where the human kind is going. I apologize for the unusual lenght of the topic. It makes the article combined with the discussion more WP:NPOV.Philosopher81sp (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm just responding to the first paragraph. What does Galileo or Newton have to do with Darwin? They didn't establish the scientific method. At a glance, you seem to be saying we should lend equal weight to the perspective that evolution is false. (Correct me if I misread you.) But that would be injecting POV into an otherwise objective discussion of one of history's most successful scientific theories—more so than Newton's simple laws of gravity, which have been superseded by Einstein. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Newton and Galileo founded the modern science in terms of its experimental method and main starting discoveries. NPOV usually derives from the comparation of more points of view (POV), like here is going to be. But here and in some points elsewhere the ideas of Darwin as presented as best possible approximation of the truth. It is not, for the reasons said above. May be it's a limit of the matter described itself which can't be object of a quantitative and numerical analysis, typical of the modern science. Hence, the Darwins' thought can be rejected, given that one of its main limits is not be quantitatively measurable, reproducible and controllable. If we don't have an equation, how can a theory be experimentally verified? For the same reasons, surgery is said to be not an exact science. On the other side, medicine has cured many people, while we aren't able to verify its truthfulness by way of some material benefit that is a certain consequence of it.
Perhaps, we have "he has told that", the circulation (of his books) and the number of people freely believing in his religion. Such criteria can't be a meter of evaluation. They are closely concerned with what a part of people is -mainly out of WP- trying to impose evolutionism as a mantra and the unique possible truth. We don't need particular qualifications to note such high limits. Anyone can edit to improve it, as it is said in the WP motto. And the results are frequently better than many "commercial scientific papers" that are subjectively oriented to the dominant theory and the related economic return it can cause in terms of wages, notoriety and so on, even in the academic world. As I am used to do, I've try to read anyone till the last sentence, without stopping to the first, but anyone has a different available time to be sent on WP. So, I hope someone else will have the "courage" to publicly give his opinion and if he eventually agree to point one or more sentences in the WP article, according to Wikipedia:Consensus. Thanks for your reply.Philosopher81sp (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
See no original research policy, and present your proposals with verification from reliable published sources making exactly the proposed points with explicit reference to Darwin. Then we can discuss it. To reach consensus, we'll also have to consider the sources that note both Darwin's application of scientific methodology, and how he influenced its development. . . . dave souza, talk 15:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you should bring your ideas (with sources, as Dave souza said) to Alternatives to evolution by natural selection. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Similar propositions were told on the Italian TV by the prominent professors Antonino Zichichi, among others. My answer comes from a good level of memory because I am interested to a matter which strictly concerns the faith in God of many people, like me. I will try to recover that video. During the 1980s, there was an attempt to reconcile the teachings on evolutionism, given to students of the Italian secondary schools, with Genesis 1 and the faith in the divine creation. Now, it happens the opposite so as to move a lot of people towards atheism or different types of spiritual religions. But this not matter of this topic. I agree with you that one or more sources are needed, given that it is required by WP and also I am not a NERD, but also I am not a specialist nor a scientific authority. I was the first not to edit the WP article and to open this discussion. Hope to find them. Thanks for your reply.Philosopher81sp (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
A memory of a TV chat by a physics professor associated with American conservative think-tank the Heartland Institute? Nope, won't do. There are books on the topic, but for a readily accessible introduction try Darwin and the scientific method | PNAS and Darwin: From Origin of Species to Descent of Man (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy #2.2. The Central Argument of the Origin. Lot of references there. As you can see, it's a complex topic, and probably beyond the scope of this overview article. . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Mathematical insights were not developed far enough, or even available yet, in Darwin's time. Maybe a link to the Price Equation article? Dkspartan1835 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Charles Darwin" page.