Talk:evolutionary theory
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Mr. Granger in topic RFV discussion: August 2015–March 2016
Deletion discussion[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
"Any of several theories that have evolved over time" — clear SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- No such definition at evolutionary though. Does it exist? Evolutionary to mean 'that evolves'? Renard Migrant (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say that evolutionary covers it, since we're talking about the evolution of the theory itself. But hell, I could probably RFV this sense just as easily. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- The definition would seem to apply to something like evolved theory. This might be some kind of misconstruction. I don't see how we can include those even if attestable. I fear we would have to attest it, if possible, and then argue about it. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say that evolutionary covers it, since we're talking about the evolution of the theory itself. But hell, I could probably RFV this sense just as easily. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble seeing why the main sense "the theory of evolution" isn't also just SOP. The provided WP link, for example, is just a redirect to "Evolution". Choor monster (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's necessary to define "evolutionary theory" because there's widespread misunderstanding over the scientific meaning of the word "theory." If we don't explain what "evolutionary theory" means, then people will be left to go to theory and try to discern which of the eight senses applies, and many will conclude it's sense five ("a hypothesis or conjecture"), when it's really sense two ("a coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena"). Thus we will unintentionally be helping reinforce the idea that "evolution is just conjecture," which is promulgated by anti-evolutionists. That said, defining "evolutionary theory" as "the theory of evolution" is unhelpful and recursive, so we should definitely improve the current definition. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm entirely aware of that difficulty. I don't see how anything we say here clarifies any particular instance, because "evolutionary theory" as a phrase is used in contexts where the conjectural sense of "theory" is deliberately intended, whereas "theory of evolution" has become essentially locked. For example, on my bookshelf is this book. In other words, a correct definition for both these usages of "evolutionary theory" is needed, at which point we as might as well pass the lexicographic burden back to "theory" alone. Either way, a reader at some point is going to actually have to understand what he's reading, and that's outside our remit. Choor monster (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's necessary to define "evolutionary theory" because there's widespread misunderstanding over the scientific meaning of the word "theory." If we don't explain what "evolutionary theory" means, then people will be left to go to theory and try to discern which of the eight senses applies, and many will conclude it's sense five ("a hypothesis or conjecture"), when it's really sense two ("a coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena"). Thus we will unintentionally be helping reinforce the idea that "evolution is just conjecture," which is promulgated by anti-evolutionists. That said, defining "evolutionary theory" as "the theory of evolution" is unhelpful and recursive, so we should definitely improve the current definition. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- The definition says "[o]f or relating to evolution", not "that evolves". Which tells me either we lack this definition of evolutionary, this is an idiom, or it doesn't exist it all. My instinct is the third one (this doesn't exist at all) but that's without researching it whatsoever (I said instinct not fact). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete the "theory of evolution" sense (sense 2), per Choor (or perhaps that needs its own RFD). Hold off on dealing with the "theory that evolves" sense (sense 1) until RFV determines whether or not it exists and, if it does exist, whether or not "evolutionary" means "that evolves" in other phrases, in which case also delete sense 1 of this entry. - -sche (discuss) 02:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sense #2 of evolutionary theory should go as not dictionary material. The interest is topical not lexical and should therefore should be covered in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- I object to this reasoning. The definition should not be encyclopedic. The definition should state the highest of the high points, suitable as a first stab at the opening sentence of a corresponding Wikipedia entry, and nothing more than that except an interwiki link. The existence of the entry should essentially depend on whether this term has distinct semantic existence or not. It seems neither entry does, hence the calls for deletion. In contrast, we should have an entry for theory of evolution, like we have for theory of relativity. Just not an "encyclopedic" entry.
- Think of all the poor suffering translators we have to cater to. They have absolutely no wiggle room when it comes to "theory of evolution", and an entry would make that clear in its translations table. In contrast, they should have as much wiggle room as they can get away with regarding "evolutionary theory", and an entry with a translations table actively interferes with that. That's because it's SOP, and that's why it should be deleted. Choor monster (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sense #2 of evolutionary theory should go as not dictionary material. The interest is topical not lexical and should therefore should be covered in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete sense 1. Keep sense 2 I've never heard sense #1 used, and it seems very much SOP or a "as used literally". Would be interested if there were any citations for this.
- Sense #2 should be stated "A theory of evolution, especially the theory of evolution through natural selection." It rarely refers to just any evolutionary theory so it is not SOP. (e.g. Lamarckism is also an "evolutionary theory") [edit: I've edited the entry to reflect this now] —Pengo (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Tried searching for sense #1 and failed: There are many uses of expressions, unrelated to biology, starting with "evolutionary theory of ..." . e.g. evolutionary theory of the firm, the multinational, the family, the development of solidarity (or designed institutions, or properties), the universe, economic change, society, history, ethics, etc... I had a look at a book subtitled "An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions"[1] to see if it matched sense #1. The theory itself is not evolving, but it's a theory which is a counterpoint to the "neoclassical" view of economic equilibrium (p4), so it doesn't even fit sense #1, as it'a still a theory about evolution, not an evolving theory. —Pengo (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I put the rfd tag back for sense #2, and have added it for sense #3.
- This is really an improved definition of "evolutionary", and should be defined there, not as part of this particular combined phrase. Consider "evolutionary model", "evolutionary programming", "evolutionary perspective", etc. Choor monster (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fair call. —Pengo (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Tried searching for sense #1 and failed: There are many uses of expressions, unrelated to biology, starting with "evolutionary theory of ..." . e.g. evolutionary theory of the firm, the multinational, the family, the development of solidarity (or designed institutions, or properties), the universe, economic change, society, history, ethics, etc... I had a look at a book subtitled "An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions"[1] to see if it matched sense #1. The theory itself is not evolving, but it's a theory which is a counterpoint to the "neoclassical" view of economic equilibrium (p4), so it doesn't even fit sense #1, as it'a still a theory about evolution, not an evolving theory. —Pengo (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep sense 2 "(biology) A theory of evolution, especially the scientific theory of evolution through natural selection", which was "The theory of evolution" before it was expanded. Then we need one another sense but not "Any of several theories that have evolved over time". And I would prefer that we drop these ISBNs in the quotations in the entry since they constitute visual noise and make it so much harder to concentrate on the quotations themselves. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I've added a definition parallel to the current #3 over at (deprecated template usage) evolutionary. At the moment sense #1 seems unverified, and senses #2 and #3 now apparently SOP. Choor monster (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Sense 1 deleted; sense 2 kept; sense 3 kept as following from sense 2. bd2412 T 14:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Rfv-sense "any of several theories that have evolved over time". Concurrently in RFD, but perhaps it belongs here more. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, this may actually be used; I'm not sure if I'm interpreting it correctly, though. See google books:"is an evolutionary theory". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- IMO, most of the citations don't support the either the sense under challenge or RfDed sense, though they may support SoP definitions or an idiomatic sense not yet provided. I would certainly need to see specific citations that purported to support the challenged sense. It should be clear that the use of "evolutionary theory" in all the social sciences is not very closely related to the use in biology. Many of the uses would seem to be efforts to associate some social theory or author with the success of "the" biological theory of evolution. A definition for these might be "A theory resembling the biological theory of evolution." DCDuring TALK 20:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Added three quotes. Theories evolve, they are mutable. I think one quote is solid but the other two might be better in a sense like DCDuring wrote above. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- IMO, most of the citations don't support the either the sense under challenge or RfDed sense, though they may support SoP definitions or an idiomatic sense not yet provided. I would certainly need to see specific citations that purported to support the challenged sense. It should be clear that the use of "evolutionary theory" in all the social sciences is not very closely related to the use in biology. Many of the uses would seem to be efforts to associate some social theory or author with the success of "the" biological theory of evolution. A definition for these might be "A theory resembling the biological theory of evolution." DCDuring TALK 20:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Closed: the sense in question was deleted in RFD. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)