Lucidish

Revision as of 17:13, 21 March 2006

Latest revision as of 21:38, 21 December 2023

(144 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{PhilosophyTasksBox}}

* [[User_talk:Lucidish/archive1|Archive (to Nov 20)]]

==[[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome]] to the [[Wikipedia]]==

* [[User_talk:Lucidish/archive2|Archive (the rest)]]

Here are some links I find useful

== File:WikiBuilding Cristina.gif listed for deletion ==

*[[Wikipedia:Policy Library]]

A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:WikiBuilding Cristina.gif]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 15#File:WikiBuilding Cristina.gif|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 01:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

*[[Wikipedia:Cite your sources]]

==Category:Philosophers by era==

*[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]

*[[Wikipedia:Wikiquette]]

*[[Wikipedia:Conflict resolution]]

*[[Wikipedia:Brilliant prose]]

*[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]

*[[Wikipedia:Pages needing attention]]

*[[Wikipedia:Peer review]]

*[[Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense]]

*[[Wikipedia:Village pump]]

*[[Wikipedia:Boilerplate text]]

'''[[:Category:Philosophers by era]]''', which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 26#Category:Philosophers by era|the category's entry]]''' on the [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|Categories for discussion]] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. [[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] ([[User talk:Mike Selinker|talk]]) 19:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

== Replaceable fair use File:Paul Thagard.gif ==

[[File:Ambox warning.svg|32px|left]]

Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Paul Thagard.gif]]'''. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|fair use]], but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|first non-free content criterion]] in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

# Go to [[:File:Paul Thagard.gif|the file description page]] and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, '''without deleting the original replaceable fair use template'''.

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.

# On [[File talk:Paul Thagard.gif|the file discussion page]], write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, [[Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission|requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license]], or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 04:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|target=Lucidish&namespace=6}} this link]</span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|non-free content policy]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> [[User:VernoWhitney|VernoWhitney]] ([[User talk:VernoWhitney|talk]]) 16:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

== Kukkurakova ==

== Replaceable fair use File:Cover of Power ANSA.jpg ==

=== Re: buddhism=philosophy? ===

[[File:Ambox warning.svg|32px|left]]

Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Cover of Power ANSA.jpg]]'''. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|fair use]]. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|first non-free content criterion]]. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have ''no free equivalent''; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

# Go to [[:File:Cover of Power ANSA.jpg|the file description page]] and add the text <code><nowiki>{{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}</nowiki></code> '''below''' the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <code><your reason></code> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.

I notice you've been categorizing Buddhism under philosophy and Buddhists under philosophers. In some cases, this is questionable, in other cases, blatantly inappropriate; "[[List of Buddhists]]" covers anyone who happens to be (a) Notable enough to be included in wikipedia and (b) Buddhist. Phillip Glass and Manuel Noriega are not philosophers. Buddhism is a ''religion'', not a philosophy, and while, like a religion, it has many philosophers associated with it, this could be said of [[Christianity]] or [[Judaism]] equally well.[[User:Kukkurovaca| -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;]]|[[User talk:Kukkurovaca|Talk&#8253;]] 19:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

# On [[File talk:Cover of Power ANSA.jpg|the file discussion page]], write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, [[Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission|requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license]], or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

=== Hmm. bell hooks? Really? ===

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|target=Lucidish&namespace=6}} this link]</span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|non-free content policy]]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> [[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 15:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to make a habit out of this (grin), but are you ''sure'' bell hooks is a philosopher? I know theory and philosophy are often interchangeable, but...[[User:Kukkurovaca| -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;]]|[[User talk:Kukkurovaca|Talk&#8253;]] 21:15, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

== [[WP:ACE2015|ArbCom elections are now open!]] ==

Well, it's certainly true that "philosopher" lacks a fixed meaning; if we used it in its original range of meaning, all scientists, for example, would be philosophers. But I think that in modern terms, and especially as regards moden philosophers, the term also connotes a certain degree of certain kinds of seriousness and thoroughness, particularly standards of riogorus argumentation. This isn't to say that sometimes philosophy can take new or unusual forms--I would never deny that ''Black Skin, White Masks'' is philosophy, for example, despite its nonstandard textual choices. But hooks's work has always seemed to me more in the spirit of reflection on personal experience (akin to the memoir as a genre) than the setting forth and defending of certain proposition regarding the essential character of things. But it's probably best to err on the side of exlusion than the other, so I shan't press the point. BTW, though, the Buddha is one of the most marginal cases of "Buddhist philosophers," as I see it, since we don't have any of his actual writings, and it's possible that much of his early teaching was purely soteriological and not really philosophical. We can say that many writings attributed to him are philosophy, to be sure, but we don't know who really wrote them. Similarly, with other thinkers like Lao tzu, though in that case the trouble is lesser because the only way to coherently define "Lao tzu" is as the author of a certain text.[[User:Kukkurovaca| -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;]]|[[User talk:Kukkurovaca|Talk&#8253;]] 22:10, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi,<br>

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current [[WP:ACE2015|Arbitration Committee election]]. The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia [[WP:RFAR|arbitration process]]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[WP:ARBPOL|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to [[WP:ACE2015/C|review the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on [[Special:SecurePoll/vote/398|the voting page]]. For the Election committee, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=693174033 -->

== File:Beasts on the Wall - Colorized.jpg listed for discussion ==

[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Beasts on the Wall - Colorized.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 17#File:Beasts on the Wall - Colorized.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]} 12:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:File:The Process - Photo Edit.gif]] ==

[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]

The file [[:File:The Process - Photo Edit.gif]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32;because of the following concern:

Experience is of course vital to philosophy; virtaully all of my philosophical allegiance is to empiricists like James, and I agree with James that personal experience ''can'' be one of the corner stones of a philosopher's work, but there is a different between uncritical reflection one experience (autobiography, essentially) and the sort of rigorous examination of ones own and others' experience which is able to create public knowledge (philosophy), and it's never clear to me, on what basis we should trust hooks's interpretations of her own experience, how we should test her claims. This is why I am distrustful of classifying her work as philosophy.

<blockquote>Orphaned, no conceivable encyclopedic use</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].

BTW, my point regarding the Buddha had nothing to do with whether the Buddha himself wrote anything down; I used the word "writings" simply because it's a commonplace in our print-centric west. "Compositions" would have been equally true. We have no way of knowing, and no reason for thinking, that any of the writings which deal with the sayings of the Buddha are actually accurate representations of his teachings. The situation with Christ is comparable; we have several accounts of his teachings, none of which probably gets him verbatim, and none of which embodies his own textual vision. We can garner some account from them, and we can from the accounts of the Buddha too, but those are, I beleive, composed rather later after his death than the gospels were after Christ, and could easily have undergone much more redaction. In Aristotles case, we have lecture notes, which are much closer to an original composition than either. With Socrates, of course, we speak of the reconstruction of him that we try to put together from historical sources alongside the version of him that Plato crafted. And while certainly I find ''Buddhist teachings'' extremely philosophically rich, I have no way of knowing which ones belonged to the historical Buddha, and so I don't usually call them ''his'' teachings.[[User:Kukkurovaca| -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;]]|[[User talk:Kukkurovaca|Talk&#8253;]] 00:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[File talk:The Process - Photo Edit.gif|the file's talk page]].

I haven't read that ''much'' of hooks's work, but I gotta say it doesn't look, feel, or quack like philosophy. I have no doubt of its importance, though. And while testing in the scientific sense is indeed rare in philosophy, most philosophers do you set forward there ideas in some framework, intended as rigorous, which allows for some form of verificiation. Thus, logic in its several forms throughout philosophy; thus, mystical attempts to penetrate into the underlying reality of existence and to ''codify'' mystic practices for others to use in replicating the experience, etc.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion|files for discussion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 00:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem discussing the importance of Socrates, Christ, or the Buddha for philosophy. Socrates ''was'' a philosopher (we're just not 100% sure what he said), the Buddha may have been a philosopher, and Christ is the basis of Christian theology. But it's important to be clear what we're talking about, particularly when we're defining categories, and saying what ''is'' what. Precision of thinking and speaking/writing is important in philosophy.

== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:File:Hume blue shade.gif]] ==

[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]

The file [[:File:Hume blue shade.gif]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32;because of the following concern:

(BTW--Socrates wasn't ''just'' one of Plato's characters; we do have some independent material substantiating his thought, and scholars can differentiate some of Plato's more accurate versions of him. This isn't true of the Buddha, really, though it is clear that he existed, I think.)

<blockquote>Unused image with unclear use.</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].

Oh, and as far as the question of whether pragmatism blurs the fact-value distinction, it depends. Certainly Dewey does something of that nature when he attempts to construct his quasi-metaphysics, but I'm not sure he's wrong to do so; one can rephrase some of it as an articulation of an evolutionary principle--survival of those creatures who have accurate knowledge about what works and what doesn't work in their interactions with their environment. In other words, what are we afraid such a blurring might do? It could lead to us de-valuing tragic goods (i.e., things that are good in some sense that is totally contrary to what works in the world), which don't seem such an extraordinary loss at first glance, or to the valuation of things which are good for human communities but are in some other-worldly moral sense "bad". But I don't think I personally acknowledge other-worldly sources of moral value.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[File talk:Hume blue shade.gif|the file's talk page]].

More to the point for you, though, is that Buddhism is essentially pragmatic. The basic Buddhist proposition is just a mode of practice which is offered to those who are suffering with the intent of enabling them to get out of suffering; metaphysical or cosmogonic questions that don't bear on the practical goal are dismissed for that reason; there is no interest in truth in itself ''accept'' insofar as that truth is soteriological, and it is typical of Buddhism to appeal to experiential arguments--"try it and see," or somewhat less nobly, "I have tried it and seen." -- when it is pressed to defend itself. Similarly, the two-truths doctrine which is most popular in Mahayana Buddhism but exists in Nikaya Buddhism as well has a decidedly pragmatic slant to it.[[User:Kukkurovaca| -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;]]|[[User talk:Kukkurovaca|Talk&#8253;]] 01:32, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion|files for discussion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 11:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you might want to get to know hooks's work a bit. She's not my favorite writer by any means, but she makes interesting and provocative claims. One of my professors puts it that she could have been a philosopher but did not, and that's too bad. You should also read some pragmatist writers, if you haven't. James's ''Pragmatism'' is very short and a solid introduction to the field, though it's also not stellar in itself. He was better at constructing essays than books or lecture series. Dewey's ''Experience and Nature'' is a monumental work, but a little opaque.

== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Meaning (non-linguistic)]] ==

The woman's angels would have no value according to any pragmatic theory of truth. They would have value for Jamesian empiricism up to precisely the point of being "real for her"--i.e., of the impossibility of anyone else being able to convince her that she does not see what she sees. But that's not a pragmatist point, only an empiricist one, and James makes the distinction. Pragmatism does not say what is good is true--only what is ''useful'', i.e., what enables us to act in ways that accord with our environment so as to be successful. Virtually all of the noted pragmatists other than Rorty are either scientists or logicians, and they had no personal interest in subordinating truth to human whim. The test of a pragmatic truth isn't, "Does it have any good outcome?", but rather, to borrow a line that James borrowed from Vedanta, (I believe), "Is it good for life?" This has a sort of double meaning: on the one hand, does it contribute to the prolonged survival of the species and its general health and well-being, and on the other, is this benefit long-lasting. Pragmatism has no toleration for narrow or short-term goods, but seeks those that that have applicability to the widest population over the longest course of time. So, while disbelieving the old lady might not be fun for her, it might be important to the cultivation of the scientific temperament that's necessary for the development of medical science that prolongs life and makes even terminal illnesses less painful to undergo. What's more, even if weren't the ultimately nicer answer, it would always be the right one from a pragmatic standoint becuase that is what enables us to make accurate prediction, and accurate prediction is the ultimate standard of pragmatic truth.[[User:Kukkurovaca| -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;]]|[[User talk:Kukkurovaca|Talk&#8253;]] 07:38, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]

The article [[:Meaning (non-linguistic)]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32;because of the following concern:

== Fool ==

<blockquote>'''[[WP:TNT]] - if this article contains a useful and relevant topic that has [[WP:SIGCOV]], it will need to at least have a more useful name. Majority of this article is uncited and would take far more effort to revise and verify than a fresh start with a meaningful name and no original research.'''</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].

Erm, doesn't the munging you just did to [[Lakatos]] contravene what it says under "punctuation" in [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style]] ? [[User:Toby Woodwark|Toby Woodwark]] 23:02, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Meaning (non-linguistic)|the article's talk page]].

See my talk page about &amp;#8217; [[User:Toby Woodwark|Toby Woodwark]] 00:43, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->

== Hydra ==

Saw your name on the edit log, thought I would say hello. You can probably figure out who I am from my user page but if you have difficulty let me know. I've stopped visiting "the regular haunt" for the most part. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:At the moment I'm still hanging around [[University of California, Berkeley|Berkeley]] but I move out to start at [[Harvard|the H-bomb]] in August/September. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:33, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''<span style="color: red;">This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the [[Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/4|history]] of each individual page for details.</span>''' Thanks, [[User:FastilyBot|FastilyBot]] ([[User talk:FastilyBot|talk]]) 09:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

=== Hey there Mr. Helpful ===

==Image copyright problem with File:Philosophy language.jpg==

If you want to help me copyedit/wikify an article I am writing, you are more than welcome to! The article I am beginning at [[User:Fastfission/HST]] will be a replacement of [[history of science and technology]] which is, at the moment, some guy's attempt to justify Cold Fusion as being on par with Galileo, and a thousand useless tree and timelines. ''Sigh''. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 19:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[[Image:Copyright-problem.svg|64px|left|alt=Image Copyright problem|link=]]

Thank you for uploading [[:File:Philosophy language.jpg]].

This image is a [[derivative work]], containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

=== Re: HST ===

Well, I realized that the guy just didn't know what I was talking about at all and that's when I realized it was better to just rewrite it rather than argue over it. Though, half of my frustration was with the guy insisting that work done on "birth order" in science was taken seriously and should be included in the article.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

If you look at what links to the HST article you can see that it is primarily in reference to the formal study, not simply "the history" of it. It would be akin to having the "philosophy" article starting off as "philosophy is the critical study of fundamental questions..." and then having one section on Humian skepticism and how it makes one really wonder if we're inside the Matrix or not.

Wikipedia takes [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright]] very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the '''license''' and the '''source''' of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a '''[[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags|copyright tag]]''' to the [[Help:Image page|image description page]].

Even worse, it would be a like a "history of philosophy" article which said, "the history of philosophy is people asking stranger and stranger questions" rather than an actual accounting of philosophers and the evolution of their theories.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=upload&user=Lucidish}} your upload log].

But even that misses the point though, that the "history" in history of science is not meant in this case, I don't think, to be literal... that is, I don't think the entry on "history of science" should try to include the entire history of science. Not only would such a thing be a rather large and futile endeavor better served by a distribution of labor around its subsidiary sub-disciplines, but that information is well within the scope of article under "science," which could have its own history sections which would further subdivide.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|media copyright questions page]]. {{You can request undeletion}} Thanks again for your cooperation.<!-- Template:Di-no license-notice --> — Ирука^{[[user:Iruka13|13]]} 11:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

On this last point I'm willing to say that just having "history of.." in front of a disciplinary name does not necessarily mean one needs to focus on the evolution of historical scholarship about it. I can see why "History of physics" is about the changes in what is roughly labeled as "physics" and not about the historical subdiscipline of "history of physics." However I think that the "history of science" is a large enough discipline (with its own history and implications, esp. all of the "Science Wars" miscellany) to warrant its own disciplinary entry as the primary entry. But anyway that's just one opinion...

== Good article reassessment for [[Power: A New Social Analysis]] ==

Also -- the historiography of science and technology (which is what a lot of my rewrite is about) is intimately linked to the history and the philosophy of science. I think to have an entry on "historiography of science and technology" would miss the point though. Our conceptions of the history of science are built by those who practice the history of science, and thus their methods of practicing it are thus relevant to the questions which the history of science plays into. Furthermore it would be akin to calling Kuhn a histographer of science rather than a historian of science -- while he is clearly both, the latter category is far more intuative.

[[Power: A New Social Analysis]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Power: A New Social Analysis/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 21:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

STS is something else alltogether, btw.. it is more of a merging of anthropology, sociology, and history of science, closer to [[science studies]] than history of science. And personally I think Steve Fuller misses the point a good deal of the time though it depends on what he is writing about.

Anyway, thanks for the comments! My goal with HST is to contextualize the development of the field (by depicting its own history) and its various warring methodologies (externalism v. internalism, the Science Wars, etc.), and then link to a few of the Wikipedia timelines which will hopefully, along with the "science" entry, provide the histories of the various scientific disciplines without too much duplication of work. I think that having a "history of science" article that reads only marginally different than a "science" article is silly. Bah! :) --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:"[[Birth order]]" is some guys theory that being born first, second, third, etc. has some sort of vast psychological impact, and whoever wrote the book on it noted that a lot of prominent scientists were first-borns or later-borns or whatever the case may be. It has some logical and ahistorical problems with it, right off the bat (Are we suppose to think that Newton wouldn't have accomplished anything if he had an older/younger brother? Or that he accomplished what he did because he didn't? What's the sample size? How does inheritance play into the practical aspect of being first born in the 17th century?) but I haven't looked at it very closely -- it's really not on the agenda of any serious historians. I edited the draft a bit more and moved "General history of science" up onto it from the old page -- I think it will satisfy people looking for the gut contents of it. I don't think "challenge to orthodoxy" as it currently stands belongs anywhere near this page -- it's really covered more fully in articles like [[scientific skepticism]], etc. If the guy thinks that Cold Fusion is really like Galileo, he should talk about it on the [[Cold Fusion]] page, or the [[Galileo]] page -- not the "history of science" page. Or maybe on a new "scientific controversy" page, linked to from these other pages. In my opinion, of course. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::I have really no opinion on "birth order" other than it not being something historians take seriously -- in my opinion it lies more in the ___domain of [[psychohistory]] which I think has a good deal of ''serious'' methodological problems. I also don't know why that particular aspect of human socialization would warrant more or overriding opinion over the multitude of others -- why say, for example, that Newton accomplished what he did (even in part) because he was born last, rather than saying it was being, say, he was a white male aristocrat in the 17th century with a fanatical desire to find harmony between the mechanical world and his God? Again, I haven't read the "birth order" texts but I can imagine a whole lot of things going on there (even with birth order -- again the economic questions) besides vulgar psychology. But maybe it's just because I'm a first-born that I think that. ;)

::On the Popper tack, if you become exceptionally bored you should take a look at the entry on [[paradigm shift]] which I edited up quite a bit. I think you will agree with my formulation of it, or at least in the same spirit that Kuhn intended it, I think -- which is exactly what you have said: looking at the seriousness of the aether theory (or any other old theory), rather than ridiculing it, gives you a much better understanding of how science works, and looking at the reasons it fell out of favor gives you a much better understanding of the little human aspects of science. However this is not what Popper, the old logical positivist, thought, in my reading of him -- he abstracts the history to the level of philosophy, which, as a historian, I of course abhor. ;) --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 17:59, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

== Hyacinth ==

Please provide a short description of your edits in the [[Edit summary]]. Thanks. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 05:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Good stuff ==

Just a quick note to say great work on the [[social psychology]] article. It's looking really good now and your recent edits have really made a difference. Nice one ! - [[User:Vaughan|Vaughan]] 08:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== hey there ==

Was wondering if you knew enough about [[Hubert Dreyfus]] to put a few notes about his work into his sad little stubby article? --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 15:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Re: demarcation, false science, and you ==

Most of the time it is easier for historians to just say that "science is what scientists do" and avoid the question alltogether. But generally historians of science don't actually get involved in making strong statements about demarcation, so I won't either. It comes down to how you define "a science," in the end, of course, but you know that's the easy way to avoid saying anything controversial. I don't have a problem studying, say, alchemy and not going out of my way to say "it's not a science!" or "it's really a science!" (actually the only time you really see that in this field is in the works on eugenics, but that's because most of the historians doing it are still in the "shock" phase of things and still feel like eugenics is worth disproving for the umpteenth million time. I don't do that when I deal with it but I think, honestly, that having a Jewish last name makes it so I don't have to constantly be defending off attacks that I give legitimacy to it or something like that). --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 23:42, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:Again, I still think it depends on how you define "science" and I don't know of any self-evidence way to do that. A scientist most likely would define "a science" as something which is part of "science" as a loosely grouped sets of methodologies and protocols. A historian might define it as practices done by people of a certain social class in certain types of institutions. And a philosopher might be more loosey goosey and define it as anything which is a system or an investigation. Only some of those exclude or include what is labeled as psuedoscience. Personally I'm inclined to say that a science is any sort of systematic investigation or set of practices, but that would include cooking as well and would exclude accidental discoveries from the realm of science. Which might be correct, but it makes me waver. But again, I do history, so I'm happy with not worrying about the abstract questions very much and focusing only on how things work out in practice. :-) --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 19:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:[[Michael Polanyi]] is a scientist who does exactly this - defining science - brilliantly. [[User:Jeffrey Newman|Jeffrey Newman]] 08:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

::Well, the problem with defining a cat as "an animal" is that it is sub-descriptive -- it's the wrong category of description (i.e. "thing" > "animal" > "mammal" > "feline" > "cat" > "(species)" > "(variant)"). Being that "cat" itself is a category (including such members as "calico" and "siamese"), when defining a "cat" we would, I think, say that it is a "feline" which is known for being furry, small, etc. Which would mean that we are referencing the category of which the term itself is a member, and then trying to describe what sets it apart from the other members of that category. (of course, I realize how futile it is to try and do categorization rigorously, but if we're trying to come up with definitions in the first place I think we can not worry too much about rigor for a minute) But I don't know if this situation is analogous to "science," which of course ''could'' be seen as a member of the category "knowledge seeking methods" but then again might ''itself'' just mean "knowledge seeking methods" depending on who you ask. Calling psuedo-science a subset of science would probably offend scientsts, because if you are defining science by its methodological aspects (induction, deduction, experiment, observation, hypothesis, etc.) then usually psuedo-science means "something which purports to be science but does not actually follow the methodology" -- and thus is not "science." But if you're talking about "science" in a more general sense (such as, "this is more of an art than a science") then I think it could work, but I think a lot of people will not grasp the nuance and they will not ''want'' to grasp the nuance. I think a lot of people, perhaps rightly, are as proprietary about the term "science" as is Disney with Mickey Mouse, even if they realize what you are trying to do. But again I'm not really weighing in on either side of things too much myself, but then again I don't have much invested in it either way most of the time.

::As for school, it doesn't start for two weeks and I think I ''almost'' know what classes I'm going to take. In any event I don't really know anybody here yet so it's somewhat lonely. :-( --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 19:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Article Licensing ==

Hi, I've [[User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project|started a drive]] to get users to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the [[Creative Commons]] Attribution-Share Alike (''CC-by-sa'') v1.0 and v2.0 [[Creative Commons License|License]]s or into the [[public ___domain]] if they prefer. The ''CC-by-sa'' license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the [[GFDL]], but it allows '''other projects''', such as [[WikiTravel]], to use our articles. Since you are among the [[Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits|top 1000]] Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at ''minimum'' those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

*[[User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ|Multi-Licensing FAQ]] - Lots of questions answered

*[[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|Multi-Licensing Guide]]

*[[User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project|Free the Rambot Articles Project]]

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "'''<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>'''" template into their user page, but there are other options at [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace#Licensing Templates|Template messages/User namespace]]. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

:'''Option 1'''

:<nowiki>I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:</nowiki>

:<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>

'''OR'''

:'''Option 2'''

:<nowiki>I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:</nowiki>

:<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public ___domain, you could replace "'''<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>'''" with "'''<nowiki>{{MultiLicensePD}}</nowiki>'''". If you only prefer using the [[GFDL]], I would like to know that too. ''Please let me know'' what you think at my '''[[User talk:Ram-Man|talk page]]'''. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- [[User:Ram-Man|Ram-Man]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new comment]| [[User talk:Ram-Man|talk)]]

== Right-wing politics ==

Could I ask you to have a look at the recent exchanges at [[Talk:Right-wing politics]]? If you want to stay out of the fray and just comment to me on my user talk page, that's OK, though I would very much welcome your active participation. My feeling is that Sam Spade and Silverback are both engaging in Humpty Dumptyism. It's really hard to debate with people who won't agree to use words in their consensus meanings. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 21:24, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

==Hey there==

What's new? --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 03:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Journalism, eh? What for? What are your plans? Where to? If you are already a subversive element then you must be doing something correct. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 03:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Oh, it's okay here. Summers is an idiot on a number of levels (there's a nice joke going around that he only opens his mouth when it needs another foot inserted into it) but he's hardly unique at that (he's an economist, what does anybody expect?). He's smart with his money but that's about it. I don't consider too brilliant a leader anyone who constantly finds themselves irritating the faculty, though. Pinker has been his nice little lapdog as of late in a really shameless and scientifically unsound way (his little Just-So stories of evolutionary biology are cute enough for US News and World Report but don't cut it when he gives them to his scientific peers). The man is humorously ignorant of history as well (he gave a talk awhile back about how 19th century science was "bad science" and that 20th century science had nothing to do with it, and then a minute later praised how much the work of [[Francis Galton]] helped our current understanding of things!), but I don't expect much out of the psychologists. Fortunately all of this is relatively insulated away from day to day activities -- the place is nothing if not decentralized. It hardly matters what the president does so long as it doesn't affect our funding. It gives us something to joke and be indignant about, though, so I guess that could be seen as a boon.

:I think journalism could be fun but I would be wary that there is probably a reason that intelligent sorts of people seem to get screened out or dumbed down. That being said, I don't know all that much about the profession. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 01:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Wondering if you could do me a favor: could you send me ([e-mail]) the e-mail address of the SA Forums user "ManoliIsFat"? I don't have an account there anymore but I wanted to send him something. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 06:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Pinker's approach to things is very narrow-minded. He reads life through a strict heredity-and-biology-is-''everything'' worldview, and enjoys taking opinions which will get him a lot of attention. I've seen him speak a few times and I've never been impressed by either his interpretative ability or his capability to realize the limitations of his own approaches or to avoid turning everything into a [[just so story]]. I'd say that I thought he gave evolutionary psychology a bad name if I didn't already think it had a pretty bad name (too speculative, takes too much from too little, and more often than not serves to just reflect the political/social opinions of those people doing the work). There has been some recent hubbub on the evolutionary purpose of the female orgasm which has been fairly humorous -- five experts, none with any evidence whatsoever, just reasoning what they think is a probably explanation, going on almost nothing in terms of evidence. Darwin himself did at least as good in the 1870s. But that's just my take on it. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 05:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I'll take a look at that particular debate when I get the chance. Pinker's strategy falls into the same pattern though: posit two strawmen, make himself out as a centrist, then make lots of statements which lean towards a strong nature interpretation, wink and tell a joke, repeat. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 18:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Meaning ==

That joke had been there a surprisingly long time - I'm glad someone else has read the article.

You've done an excellent job on [[Philosophy of language]], by the way. Good work. [[User:Banno|Banno]] July 4, 2005 08:33 (UTC)

== Philosophically illiterate vs dumbing down ==

I've just added this note below yours on the Philosophy Project page. In case you don't see it there, I'm adding it here. I would like to see an 'introduction' to philosophy section somewhere. If I read the discussion accurately, it doesn't yet really exist (but the discussion is a bit meandering and long...)

: The best written argument as to why philosophy is difficult that I have read is in Hegel's Preface to his ''Phenomenology of Spirit.'' Perhaps one sentence is worth quoting here - in the hope that there is a place for it somewhere else? 'In the case of all other sciences, arts, skills and crafts, everyone is convinced that a complex and laborious programme of learning and practice is necessary for competence. Yet when it comes to philosophy, there seems to be a currently prevailing prejudice to the effect that, although not everyone who has eyes and fingers, and is given leather and last, is at once in a position to make shoes, everyone nevertheless immediately understands how to philosophize, and how to evaluate philosophy, since he possesses the criterion for doing so in his natural reason - as if he did not likewise possess the measure for a shoe in his own foot.' (''Preface, para 67.'') I was 'trained' in analytic philosophy; coming across 'continental' philosophy late in life has been a 'revelation! Do I put this on [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] page or leave it just here? I am still 'new'; I will, in fact, do both...(if I am technically sufficiently competent and can manage it quickly! [[User:Jeffrey Newman|Jeffrey Newman]] 07:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

::I've added a bit more to the 'string' under the 'Philosophically illiterate' heading[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#The_Philosophically_Illiterate]]. Perhaps you might like to have a look.

::I am not especially interested in the topic of [[epistemology]] and not enthusiastic about the article here but I am deeply interested in issues about [[truth]], [[fact]], [[opinion]] and their relative importance e.g in regard to the conflict between scientific thinking and other ways of knowing - so the Sokal stuff is important to me and worth analysing. I think their 'bit of fun' shows a deep lack of understanding of what philosophy is and how it works and the importance of metaphor in human thinking. Nor do I think they show much understanding of science, what it is, how it works! I'm thinking here particularly of the work of [[Michael Polanyi]]. Again, the Wikipedia article gives a good outline of his life but you would not get much idea of his work or thinking from it. [[Heidegger]] was notoriously anti-historicist when teaching [[Aristotle]]: 'He lived, he worked, he died,' and was not interested in anything else about him except his writings. Wikipedia goes the other way. Mentioning H. reminds me that I've also worked quite a bit on [[Hannah Arendt]] for whom questions of truth, fact, opinion were, not surpringly, of critical interest in the in the political/philosophical realm. Why do you ask? [[User:Jeffrey Newman|Jeffrey Newman]] 05:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

:::If I understand your comment on my page correctly, I agree with you: philosophy and epistemology are of use in the world 'as it is' [[Wittgenstein]]. My sweeping reference to lack of understanding between philosophy and science refers to both Sokal and Wikipedia - cf. articles e.g. on [[pseudo-science]] and [[protoscience]] and the extreme beliefs in scientific purity that I come across in some of the Wikipedian articles. [[User:Jeffrey Newman|Jeffrey Newman]] 18:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

==Banned?==

What'd you get banned for? Now I'm curious.... What have you been up to in general? --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 14:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

:I think getting away from there was a good thing anyway. I don't consider the discussions to be very worthwhile, with the exception of a few thoughtful users drowning in a sea of "teh funney". Wikipedia can be a fun place to kill a lot of time but I've found that because the work one produces is somewhat individual (that is, you are writing up "your" articles), yet the project on the whole is collective, it can make for a lot of irritation (such as when someone seriously monkeys with "your" article). So I've learned to just not look at articles like that for a few weeks, come back to it later and try to patch things up again. It doesn't matter much in the long run and it's all mostly anonymous anyway.

:I took a class on copyright law last semester and I've been trying to reform Wikipedia's [[fair use]] policy. Other than that I've been awash in an intensive language class I've been taking over the summer. Я говорю, но я не понимаю. I also wrote a research paper on the history of [[random number]] generation which was somewhat interesting. Such is life. I haven't seen the Bryson book but if I stumble across it I will take a gander. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 23:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberalism]] ==

Would you consider changing your vote to '''speedy keep''' so we can get this over with? -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 08:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

== Liberalism ==

Lucidish, so sorry that you did not like the article on Asner. Too bad. It's legitimate and in keeping with Wikipedia's rules. Delete it again and you will be reported. We have a thing in America called "Freedom of Speech".

==Einstein==

I'm of course fine if people want to have nuanced and well-informed lines about priority disputes in articles. But this guy is just pushing nonsense. The Bjerknes stuff is an orgy of quotation out of context, lack of understanding, and in the end still has no real substance. And of course to get out of the inevitable fact that historians and scientists do not agree with him, he postulates both a massive conspiracy and massive incompetence. Neither seem particularly true in my experience. In any event, I of course love a good discussion of a real priority dispute -- they are fascinating both historically and epistemologically -- but some anonymous user adding pithy and unnuanced little phrases to articles, with the sole intention of pushing a crank theory as mainstream, is far from that. Just my two cents. I agree that banning for half a month was unnecessarily long, but I am not inclined to be very tolerant when it comes to the actual article content, and I do not want to invite these fellows to try and "prove" to me one position or another on the talk page; it is a waste of time, in the end, for all involved. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

:From what I can tell, there is a small minority of physicists/mathematicians who like to play around with the priority game a bit. Their standing is not insignificant (they are not cranks for the most part, though a few are in my opinion borderline), but they are definitely a minority opinion. Most historians of physics place the priority in the "traditional" places, though the vast majority do so without making strong arguments about it, because they don't find this kind of priority dispute very insightful or very provoking (as my advisor, a prominent Einstein scholar, once put it: "Our discipline not a post-hoc prize committee… who gives a shit?"), and because priority disputes of this time almost always revolve around whose interpretations of the historical object in question you go with (in this case, what exactly constitutes the unique factors of "general relativity" which separate its interpretations of, say, Lorentz transformations from, say, Lorentz's?, etc.).

:Personally the way I would approach it is probably like this:

:#Create a page about [[scientific priority]] which discusses the difficulty in really weighing out complicated priority disputes, those in which the identity object of the dispute is itself disputed. Some good examples of this include the Einstein-Poincaré dispute, the various people who are trotted out to supposedly be predecessors of Darwin, the question about what Freud took from Fliess, and maybe one more dear to my own heart, the [[Teller-Ulam design]] priority dispute (the article on [[Edward Teller]] describes this pretty well in my opinion). Also maybe some discussion of retrospective priority assignment in a few rare cases (i.e. Mendel), but mention that this sort of thing is almost always done in the case of a re-discovery of a forgotten/lost theory and the assignment is almost always only taken seriously when it has been done by the re-discoverer. Talk about some of historical/philosophical issues (I can e-mail you a good article on the subject if you are interested on a personal level). Talk about how often these sorts of things are used by detractors of a given person or theory (i.e. Einstein, Darwin, Freud) to devalue both the theory and the creator of the theory. Talk about how most historians don't usually deal with these sorts of things (there is a good quote on the Darwin page about this, also I believe that Darrigol article had a quote to this effect). Maybe include a "list of well-known scientific priority disputes" or something like that.

:#Assign credit to Einstein in all of the places where it is usually assigned. Make a note that a small minority of mainstream historians or physicists sometimes assign the priority or at least a strong influence to Poincaré, Lorentz, whomever. Mention that the majority of historians of physics don't do this and that they don't usually worry too much about this sort of priority dispute; link to the new article.

:#Party.

:I think what is important here is to properly balance the majority/minority question, and I think if we had a half-way decent article about priority disputes and how they are regarded it would stem off some of this sort of problem in the future. I think it is hard for people not acquainted with these fields to understand why these sorts of factual nitpickings are not a big concern for historians. Of the non-crank people who engage in such work, they are almost always scientists, who believe that the history of science is simply a lining up of priority statements, even though science is not generally thought to work in that way (i.e. Mendel had priority but if Mendel had never existed it would not have changed the history of genetics one bit since he was completely uninfluential to future thought, hence the whole "rediscovery").

:Boy, that's a lot of text! If you think this is a good approach I'll try to help out where I can, especially on the priority article which is a subject I find interesting on the whole and have a lot of good references for. Eager for your opinion on all of this. I know that I bitch and moan whenever some crank comes along and stirs things up though I do recognize the positive value of such a thing; it forces one to be a bit more rigorous and sometimes to generate a lot of content which otherwise would have been neglected. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

*I don't care who gets credit for what as long as 1. we are really reflecting the consensus of the relevant expert communities and 2. we indicate this and 3. we cite this. I'm happy to try and survey some of the well-respected secondary literature on Einstein/Poincare/etc. and see what they say on the subject. I trust nothing that our IP addressed friend posts -- he is obviously a POV pusher of the worst sort, selectively quotes and misinterprets (think here of the Kip Thorne bit, where he happily ignores the fact that Thorne actually says he gives Einstein priority in the next sentence, and then actively insists that we should also ignore that sentence), and champions cranks and minority views while denegrating majority views. I don't think we should be trying to deal with this at all on a level of primary sources; distinguishing between certain high level relativity concepts is something left to experts to squabble about. The worst case scenario here is we post something that is only accepted by a few fringe guys, don't indicate it, and then become a real laughingstock of the historical/scientific community. In my opinion that is far worse off than if the mainstream version turns out to be biased in one way or another. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 18:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

: Hi Lucidish, I saw your comments on Fastfission's page... but I didn't see your comments on Poincare's Talk page. There I insisted on simply stating the facts about what Poincare achieved (without drifting off)and facts about opinions about his achievements (standard policy, right?); regretfully anon is unable (or unwilling) to understand that. But slowly (eventhough I've been a bit absent lately) we're getting grip on it, as about everyone else who passes by disagrees with his soapbox comments. Anyway, everything is so impressively well sourced, that the facts speak for themselves, and there is no need for opinions. Thus Whittaker's opinion has little other relevance than to point out to the uninformed that there is some disagreement on that issue. Whittaker didn't have more sources than we have; in fact, and like with archeology, we probably have access to ''more'' sources than he had. :-) If you want to chat about that issue, just send me an email. Cheers, [[User:Harald88|Harald88]] 20:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

: Hi Lucidish, Glad you like my take on Whittaker. Maybe it should be moved to a place on the Einstein talk page closer to all the other back-and-forth on e = mc^2. When I finish a complete translational of Poincare (1900), a slow process for me! I will think about publishing a commentary on that paper. I recall seeing somewhere that Whittaker's book was considered fairly controversial in the 1950s (as one would expect). I also saw somewhere that Max Born, before Whittker published, tired to convince Whittaker to give Einstein more credit. [[User:E4mmacro|E4mmacro]] 20:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

*One source I came across for completely other reasons is Kragh's ''Quantum Generations'', a wonderful history of 20th century physics, extremely scholarly, very clear, very sharp, written by a historian for historians. It is very highly respected and often used in current pedagogy on history of physics (it was assigned to me to read for this reason). It had a very good and very balanced discussion of all of the priority dispute bits, and where all the individual players fit in (Lorentz, Poincaré, Hilbert). If you are interested, I could send you the relevant sections, if you thought you'd have time to look at them. I haven't gone over the whole thing with a fine toothed comb but I'm willing to say it's probably the most "up to date" version of the "current historical consensus" on any of these questions. Just an offer, if you are interested. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 01:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

*Send me an e-mail at: [e-mail] and I'll reply with the PDF. I don't know about the Folsing book, but could probably take a look at it, there seem to be a few copies of it available to me. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 03:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

==Unity Project==

Are you involved with the Unity Project in London? [[User:Barry Wells|Barry Wells]] 20:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

:Who's "Paris"? Paris Hilton? Just kidding. I don't know who "Paris" is. [[User:Barry Wells|Barry Wells]] 02:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:: Tell Steve that I voted for him. In the future, I may support the Greens. The NDP and the Greens should consider merging at some point in time. Jim Wilson, the leader of the Green Party of Canada is scoring some serious points with his succinct and clear speeches across Canada. I do believe that it is the political part of the future. Thanks for the kind words about my activism. [[User:Barry Wells|Barry Wells]] 03:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

== Category:Contemporary philosophers ==

[[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_14#Category:Contemporary_philosophers|Please vote here]]. &mdash; [[User:Goethean|goethean]] [[User_talk:Goethean|&#2384;]] 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

== logic ==

In logic, I've really only studied the classic stuff -- I'd like to keep up with new developments, especially forcing theory, but my main area is knot theory, which is also booming. So much to learn, so little time. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

== Question ==

Do you have stairs in your house? [[User:Scott Ritchie|Scott Ritchie]] 01:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

==Wikimedia Canada==

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore [[m:Wikimedia Canada|Wikimedia Canada]], and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--[[User:DarkEvil|DarkEvil]] 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

==Very important answer==

Nope. Why? --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 04:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

== Comment added to your user page ==

:''<small>Misplaced comment moved here. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 09:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)</small>''

Dear Lucidish,

As now, "Meaning'' looks a bit chaotical without a clear definition and classification.

Azamat Abdoullaev, 24 February

<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Azamat Abdoullaev|Azamat Abdoullaev]] ([[User talk:Azamat Abdoullaev|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Azamat Abdoullaev|contribs]]) 08:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned2] -->

== Your message ==

To be honest I stopped really bothering a while ago. There are a couple of editors whose presence means that the article is never going to be in good condition, and I decided that my time was better spent elsewhere. Good luck with it. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 08:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

== vir parum jurisconsultus et minime philosophus ==

I'm not an expert, but 'parum' is an adverb i think. Thus "He is not enough of a lawyer and least of all a philosopher". Probably. Dean [[User:Dbuckner|Dbuckner]] 14:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Better: "He is not much of a lawyer, and [he is] least of all a philosopher" [[User:Dbuckner|Dbuckner]] 14:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

== Confused ==

Hello, Lucidish. You said you are confused regarding statements I have made on the [[Talk:Philosophy]] page:

: Confused. You first said, "The opening sentence of this article describes the word ''philosophy'' instead of the topic of philosophy. I suggest that until the opening sentence describes philosophy, this article is not encyclopedic in tone or style". Presumably, something to be scrapped. Then KS said, "I suspect Rod would be perfectly content with an extremely brief one-liner definition," which is out of line with your comments, because you had said the opposite. Then, while claiming to agree with his interpretation, you go on to dispute it, by suggesting that "My drive is simply to alter the style of the intro so that it describes the article's topic instead of a word" (assuming, of course, that there is a difference between a topic and definition that is salient for the purposes of the article). What is it, exactly, that you're saying? You can't have both at once. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 02:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the referrent of "both" in your assertion, "You can't have both at once". I think "both" probably refers to two of the following:

* [We should] alter the style of the intro so that it describes the article's topic instead of a word.

* [The article would include] an extremely brief one-liner definition [of the word ''philosophy''].

* [We should] alter the style of the intro so that it describes [philosophy] instead of a word.

Did your "you can't have both at once" comment refer to two of the above? If so, which two. If not, to what two alleged desires did it refer? [[User:Rodasmith|The Rod]] <small>([[User talk:Rodasmith|&#9742; Smith]])</small> 21:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

:1 and 3 are synonymous in this context, so #1 and #2 are what are contradictory. In #1 you seem to be indicating a universal negative, then in #2 you indicate a particular positive. If that's a fair reading, then it's self-falsifying.

:If you were, on the other hand, merely making general or offhand remarks about the way that the intro tends to be going, then that warrants no discussion at all, and you're free to make edits as you like; though I'd reiterate that the "definition" section in its present form does cover facts about usage, and not semantic meaning (i.e., that regarding the relationship between science and philosophy), and so is a very happy candidate for potential material to the intro. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 00:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

::Forgive me for being dense, but I do not follow. If I understand your use of "universal negative" and "particular positive", you are alleging a contradiction between two of my statements, specifically, the ones that follow:

::*"[The article would include] an extremely brief one-liner definition [of the word ''philosophy'']."

::*"[We should] alter the style of [article introductions in general] so that [they describe] the [articles' topics] instead of [the words in their titles]."

::I see no contradiction between those two statements, and certainly no blanket incompatibility between universal negatives and particular positives. In this case, I believe it is consistent and desirable for the introduction of this article to describe the philosophy instead of the word ''philosophy'' and for a subsequent section of the article to include a brief definition of the word ''philosophy''. Please explain how you interpret those statements to be mutually contradictory. [[User:Rodasmith|The Rod]] <small>([[User talk:Rodasmith|&#9742; Smith]])</small> 00:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

:::"1. [We should] alter the style of the intro so that it describes the article's topic instead of a word.

:::2. [The article would include] an extremely brief one-liner definition [of the word philosophy]."

:::It seems to me that the full logical structure of #1 is something like, "The style of the intro can be either about the topic, or a word; it is currently about a word; we should alter the intro so that it describes the topic."

:::The word "instead", which is recovered in part as an "either-or", is mutually exclusive, meaning you can't have one without the other. As evidence to show that this is a decent logical translation of the use of the word "instead", let's take another instance. Say I'm at a diner, and I can have either a sandwich or a sausage. I make up my mind and say, "I'd like a sandwich ''instead of'' a sausage, please." We can expect me to be very surprised if the waiter were to bring me both. I explicitly wanted one, and not the other.

:::That being said. For the sake of economy, for the purposes of this conversation, we can reduce the important information in #1 down to: "The introduction should not describe the word "philosophy"." I read this as a universal claim, as in: "For ''all of'' the introduction, it should not describe the word "philosophy"." A universal claim is just one which has the word "all" describing its subject (in this case, "the introduction"). And it's a negative universal, because you're denying something about that universal, as indicated by the word "not". I admit, the phrase "the introduction" is equivocal in terms of quantity, and so it's very hard to say that it logically defaults as meaning either "all of the introduction" or "some of the introduction". But by convention or habit, people pragmatically treat it as defaulting as an "all" statement.

:::For #2, I called it a "particular" because it discusses only a single thing, namely, "a brief one-liner sentence". And it's positive, because it doesn't have any negative word in it, like "not".

:::If these were accurate readings, then they are contradictory. It would be like saying, "All dogs are fat", and then saying, "But I own a slim dog".[[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]]

::::It sounds like a bit of a stretch, but perhaps you believed the above interpretation and were not just trying to debate for debate's sake. I agreed not to object to a brief definition of the word, but maintained my conviction that the focus of introduction be the topic instead of the word. Your reply apparently tried to discredit that recommendation by contrasting its maximally exclusive interpretation with my acceptance of a brief definition somewhere in the article. I appreciate debate, but would prefer to work collaboratively toward improving the article. [[User:Rodasmith|The Rod]] <small>([[User talk:Rodasmith|&#9742; Smith]])</small> 02:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

::::: Indeed, that was my interpretation, and how I arrived at it. It's on the basis of the words, and the conventions that govern them. I'm happy to collaborate, too -- and I would actually be being a very poor collaborator if I failed to, in the first instance, try to understand what you meant according to your own words (and the conventions that govern them). I'm all for charity, but had seen no evidence in any of your comments that you were taking anything but an absolutist position on this matter. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 02:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Since my recommendations (the article introduction should focus on the topic instead of the word; and I would not object to a brief definition) were literally self-consistent, you could have chosen to interpret them so. Anyway, I'm glad you are happy to collaborate.

:::::: Do you oppose or support applying [[WP:1SP#Use of 'refers to'|the 'refers to' recommendation of Wikipedia's Guide to writing better articles]] to the [[Philosophy]] article? A good place to voice your objection or support is after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philosophy&diff=prev&oldid=41986499 my appeal to that standard] on [[Talk:Philosophy]]. [[User:Rodasmith|The Rod]] <small>([[User talk:Rodasmith|&#9742; Smith]])</small> 16:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::: Made a comment per your request, though it hardly seems worth comment.

::::::: In the spirit of reading you on your own terms, I could only have ''chosen'' to interpret one way or the other after you approved of KS's interpretation, and not before it (for the reasons I indicated above). Of course, after you approved of it, I expressed confusion. The principle of charity would have applied in a case where there was not any other significant pragmatic weight, and there had been reason to see a genuine equivocation at play. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 17:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume your "KS's interpretation" above refers to the following post:

:This is not true. I suspect Rod would be perfectly content with an extremely brief one-liner definition. The problem Rod is identifying is in the first couple sentences, the entire second paragraph, and the entire first section of the article. This is ''way'' too much space spent on the word "philosophy"[....] [[User:KSchutte|KSchutte]] 15:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, my recommendation is simple, consistent, sane, honest, and in the best interest of Wikipedia. The above interpretation by KS appears to me to be accurate.

Anyway, you say, "The principle of charity would have applied in a case where there was not any other significant pragmatic weight, and there had been reason to see a genuine equivocation at play." That sentence suggests that my approval of KS's interpretation was somehow deceitful. Such suggestions make collaboration difficult because they put the target (me, in this case) in an unnecessarily defensive position. [[User:Rodasmith|The Rod]] <small>([[User talk:Rodasmith|&#9742; Smith]])</small> 19:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

== Blackburn quote ==

I take it to you're referring to the citation from the ''Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy''? Otherwise, I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't see anything atrributed to Simon Blackburn in the sections that I fiddled with (i.e. definitions and so on). In any case, no offense was intended. I was trying to cut back a little on the size of the lead section; it is now '''six paras''' and much too wordy. According to [[WP:LEAD]], it should be no more than four even in extreme cases. But there was nothing particular about the cut. I just couldn't think of ways to cut back the verbiage without eliminating or merging some of the various definitions.--[[User:Lacatosias|Lacatosias]] 08:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

==Thank you for Reference==

Thanks for your reference to [[Gracian]]'s Oraculo Manual. I have tried to read it several times but am put off by its cynical concern with public success, in which I have no interest. Yet, I am planning to try to read it again. If you are interested in [[Kant]]'s first Critique, be sure to look at the Wiki article [[Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy]]. Your user page asserts that you support the legalization of [[cannabis]]. Please note that this drug provides temporary elation but tragic long-term damage to the nervous system.[[User:Lestrade|Lestrade]] 17:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade