Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:26, 20 February 2008

3RR warning

On the creation-evolution article you are getting very close to WP:3RR. JoshuaZ 12:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I did not assert that your next revert would put you over merely that your pattern was getting you very close it. As for your other comments, I will respond to them when I have time. JoshuaZ 20:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It might also be helpful if you explicitly brought up the matter of the merger and explained your position on the talk page. Even if there was consensus for the merger earlier it does not look like there is now. JoshuaZ 20:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Also one more point- if the editors thought what you did was POV you may want to ask them on their talk pages and explain wht you did it. JoshuaZ 21:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You say you have opened a discussion of your intended pages on Talk:Creation-evolution controversy. Are you referring to your Sept. 13th and 14th edits to the section "German Poll"? Because they only seem to cover some of the material you inserted; they do not speak to all the material which was inserted and then reverted. How about we discuss this on that talk page in a new section called "Rtc's Proposed Changes"? Cheers, Kasreyn 04:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Rtc, my understanding of WP:3RR is that edits which constitute a partial revert - where part of the material is restored to its previous form - also count towards one's limit. Otherwise, 3RR would be utterly unenforceable, as revert-warriors would simply add new content with every revert and claim that, as it isn't an exact revert, it isn't a revert at all and doesn't count. Cheers, Kasreyn 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Really, Kasreyn, I do not see what "material inserted" you are talking about. I did not insert any material, I slightly corrected incorrect changes and did a merger discussed long ago. Yes, I am refering to Sept. 13 and 14 edits to "German Poll". Did you read them? Did you read User talk:JoshuaZ#Creation-evolution controversy? Why don't I get any follow-up on talk page of the arctile nor on the JoshuaZ talk page just mentioned? Why does nobody give quotations of what they reject about my change or give any comment about them at all? All I know is that "rv POV" and "you are wrong" and "you have been rejected by x editors" and unspecific claims that I have inserted "material". You can write English on my German user page, but you can also reply here. I don't mind. I am only checking english WP once a day, though. Your opinion about 3RR is wrong. If the changes are progressive towards a common goal (I took back bias claim), it is perfectly okay to go into a "quasi-"edit-war (I'd call it an cooperative edit session). --Rtc 18:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience article

Rtc, I apologize for getting so snappy earlier. You have a wealth of valuable points regarding Popper; thanks very much for that set of contributions. ... Kenosis 14:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, too, for harsh language. --Rtc 14:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Rtc, I'm not sure I agree with all your points, but I do know that you know more about Popper than do I, so I'm staying out of that part. No point in looking egregiously stupid.  ;) One note, beware Krishna -- he's the expert beyond all experts.
One other point, if you could recommend just one book by Popper (or about Popper) what would it be? Thanks. •Jim62sch• 10:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Many people believe to know what's in the book, but once you read it, you will be surprised, I guarantee. (However, editing the Pseudoscience article, I sadly noticed that very important appendices *XIII–*XX and some prefaces seem to be exclusive so far to the German version. So if you can get your hands on 11th edition of the German version, I can really recommend it. The editor also added a detailed section about the development of the book.). The Logic is a very early book, if you want to see the improvements that have been made to Popper's critical rationalism in the meantime, also read David Miller: Critical rationalism. A re-statement and defence. PS: I'm surely not an expert, more the interested laymen. But on wikipedia, once you have read the book you are writing about, you almost count as an expert ;) Unfortunately wikipedians google too much and there is a bias to web sources, which are often of bad quality... --Rtc 10:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get the Popper book (English first...my German is fine as far as reasonably non-complex conversations or contributions to Wiki, but technical stuff takes a good bit more effort), then I can look into Miller. You have a good point about Wiki being google-happy -- but I suppose that's just easier for so many these days. However, it's also less productive as many people have great difficulty filtering out or even noticing the bias. Of course, a lot of it has to do with the nuances of English, but I know that in the US, nuances are missed left and right, thus leading to miscomprehension (of course, that's often the writer's goal). Again, many thanks. •Jim62sch• 21:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OpenVZ marked as essay

You have recently marked OpenVZ article with Template:Essay-entry, but haven't provided any explanation why you think so. To my mind, article is very technical, specific and to the point. So could you please elaborate and tell something about your decision (preferrably on the Talk:OpenVZ page)? --K001 11:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Science

Thanks for getting the lead of the article on Science back to a more reasonable expression of the concept, RTC. You're right; it is definitely not "and/or...". ... Kenosis 03:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Careful, lad. You're vvery close to 3RR over on Irreducible Complexity. Adam Cuerden 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm from German Misplaced Pages. We do not have 3RR here, for good reason. You should abandon it, too. PS: there's also WP:NPOV. It's more important to enforce that policy... --Rtc 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You've gone over the 3RR. This is the English Misplaced Pages and it does have the 3RR rule even if the German one doesn't.-Psychohistorian 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't search an excuse for adding POV. Adding POV is forbidden even if you can allegedly trick the opponent into 3RR. Don'T game the system, or you may be blocked. --Rtc 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You have been reported for violating the 3RR.-Psychohistorian 19:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to reread the 3RR policy - particularly the part which states, "Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention."-Psychohistorian 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I did not undo work. I added the source in a different way: . Unfortunately my compromise was ignored completely. Why didn't you AGF and discuss on the talk page, but immediately worked towards getting me blocked? Why was my message on the talk page removed, suggesting I wasn't using discussion? --Rtc 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rtc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Please provide a reason why your block was not valid. — Yamla 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Rtc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please review the block reason "Three-revert rule violation: repeated 3RR violations with no sign of stopping" for correctness and please review the indefinite block for appropriateness

Decline reason:

I've reviewed the block and the 3RR. Now, as Yamla told you, it's time for you to provide a reason why you should be unblocked. - auburnpilot talk 19:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Request handled by: Orderinchaos 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The block reason is false. I did not violate 3RR, which speaks of "a 24-hour period". Further, the reverts were done to "remove controversial material about living persons" (and it was poorly sourced, too, although I don't mind about that, since it is correct. But it is something that is neither relevant nor right to include). The 3rr violation was also not a "repeated" one. Finally, User:Alkivar took a clear position on the content issue and it must hence be assumed that he blocked me because he disliked my position on it and wanted to censor me, not because of any 3RR violation. My most recent edit before he blocked me wasn't in the article, but in , where I was ready to discuss the issue. He didn't even give me a chance to do so and to reply to his opinion. Even if the reason would have been correct, the indefinite block wouldn't be appropriate.

I'll leave a note on AN/I under that heading to direct other users to this unblock request. - auburnpilot talk 20:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You say that you "believe the block was valid", but this is not a question of beliefs, but a question of facts. And the block is in fact not valid; I have given strong arguments about that above. Why are they ignored? It is the same as every time, the 3rr block is done purely as an excuse to get me censored, and upheld while being factually incorrect, and it is a dishonest replacement for the actual reason behind the intention to block, which however isn't a valid reason for blocking. --rtc 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked this user. rtc is however advised that 3RR does attract a 24 hour block, and per WP:BLOCK, second and further offences, were they to occur, could attract longer penalties. Orderinchaos 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

17 easy steps // and thanks

Haw haw.. I haven't read that in a long time. Thanks for your contribs to Hacker, stick around... Es gibt wirklich kein 3RR auf die Deutsche Misplaced Pages!?.. Wie kommt edit wars zur Ende? -- Sehen wir uns.. ∴ here…♠ 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• The editwars usually come to an end by protecting the article instead of blocking the participants of the edit war. --rtc 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation related to Hacking related articles

Rtc, there have been a series of worrisome actions undertaken on your part, such as the move and renaming of several articles without a proper discussion with all affected parties across those articles, and frankly this has begun to look like a revisionist campaign to me. For instance, there was never an academia and hobbyist(!) section to the hacker article because there isn't a gross divide within the hacking community and the academic concept was already well covered in the former Hacker culture article. Also, as a matter of fact, the computer security aspect to hacking is a relatively new attribute applied to those within the overall hacker community.

Unfortunately, these changes have led to a great deal of misinformation caused by your well-intentioned but premature edits.

Foremost are the edits leading to the propagation of the divided hacking community of hobbyist, academia, and computer security, a point I tried to clarify in my previous edit (Talk:Hacker#heap of rubble).

1. You moved the Hacker culture article to the erroneous Hacker (academia) which you should not have done as the single Hacker article should, as well as having a detailed history, cover the ambiguities. But even more importantly, the objective of the latter was to detail the hacking community as a worldwide subculture similar to all others subculture. This was completely lost by your edits. The hacker community developed over decades of like-minded enthusiasts the world over coming together. I cannot fathom why the hacker culture was moved to hacker (academia), granted, the root, but an irrelevant aspect of the community now. Something of this magnitude should have been done with a long and extended discussion.
2. You moved the Hardware hacker article to Hacker (hobbyist) and this is the one that is really troublesome. Like I said, hacking is not a hobby, it is a full-blown subculture. That is why the networked hacker culture is referred to as the "hacking community" (see Google results: 13,000,000). Playing chess is a hobby. Hacking is not chess. This aspect was greatly lost also by your massive changes to the former hacker culture article. And second to this, the hardware hacker field of hacking is a specialized field similar to phreaking. All phreakers and hardware hackers are hackers, but all hackers are not phreakers and hardware modifier.
3. You moved the important Timeline of hacker history to the erroneous title of Timeline of computer security hacker history and continued to change to reflect the new title. As I said before, the broader computer security aspect is a relatively new attribute applied to the hacker community, as it developed counter to hackers based upon the perceived image of hackers.

Perhaps if you were to research on the history of hacking and spend an extended time within a hacker network, you would understand why these issues arise.

Note also that the main reason no action was undertaken to revert the errors was to prevent an edit-war. But something of this magnitude might require a Request for Comment. -- Kerowren  19:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, Kerowen, but this criticism amounts to nothing. Nowhere a claim is made about a "divided hacking community". There are simply several hacker cultures, with different roots and different understanding of the term, computer security hacker culture seeing one big hacker community, academic hacker culture (at least prominent adherents from it, such as ESR) disassociating itself from this idea. What I have done is to give the correct account according to the Jargon File and other sources, which I have all provided. From you, I do not see a single source, only that I should do "research on the history of hacking and spend an extended time within a hacker network". But there is no Original Research to be done on Misplaced Pages. The Point of view you are refering to is well accounted for in the Hacker article, just as WP:NPOV demands: "The computer security hacking subculture on the other hand tends not to distinguish between the two subcultures as harshly". So what are you complaining about? I did these things according to being bold, to put an end to the endless, amateurish nonsense that has accumulated around these articles. The feedback was positive at Talk:Hacker#heap of rubble. Perhaps you should consider that the presentation carries some truth and check whether your own impression of the hacker stuff has to be revised. At least you should argue with sources instead of your own doubtlessly extended personal experiences within the "hacker network", which isn't a valid source for Misplaced Pages. However, I agree that the article Hacker (hobbyist), as it is now, is bad at least, even misleading. The main point, the MITS Altair, is completely missing. But that can be improved. I think you are too much understanding the three subcultures as being demarcated according to their activities (that is, hacking as a hobby, hacking as an academic pofession and hacking as a job in computer security industry). That is not so; it is a misunderstanding. They are demarcated according to their historical origin and development, their context. To give an extreme example, just as Nudism and Indigenous peoples both have something to do with nakedness, they are certainly different historical contexts. So it is wrong that "the hacking community a worldwide subculture"; neither is the academic hacker culture "the root" of a large subculture that is centered around computer security—phreaking and 2600 is that root, and it has nothing to do with the academic hacker culture—, nor is the academic hacker culture "an irrelevant aspect of the community now"—it is a subculture completely in its own right, it's just called free software and open source movement nowadays. Further, it is wrong that the "three are not different, they are the same". They are objectively different, and that difference is their historical origin, development and context, that is, phreaking, 2600 and BBSs for the computer security hacker subculture, MIT-AI and other university computers for the academic hacker culture and MITS Altair for the hobbyist hacker culture. (And, despite this being the actual demarcation, yet, in practice, there ARE large differences also in their activities, although these differences are less sharp—hardware hacking is found in all three subcultures, but in their respective different context, guided by different objectives and motivations. But breaking into systems, be it ethical or not, be it one's own system or someone else's, is emphatically NOT something the academic hacker community is about or has ever been about.) I made some clarifying edits, hoping that the misunderstanding of the demarcation as one based on activity is prevented better now. Given the utterly chaotic state before I did my changes, I disagree that what I have done "should have been done with a long and extended discussion." Although I do not think that the distinction is wrong, I am ready at any time to change it, even completely, if you come up with convincing (that is, not some random usenet posting, for example) sources that are better (ie., more detailed, taking into account and explaining more facts etc.) than the current ones. Finally, go ahead if you wish to initiate a Request for Comment. I am always interested in feedback and hints about things I have done wrong (although I am confident that my changes give a correct account and represent the sources I have cited fairly). --rtc 21:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kero has now canvassed a number of users on this issue, despite not yet posting anything to Talk:Hacker. Lets please continue this discussion where it belongs. ∴ here…♠ 02:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and the logical positivist approach to the very idea of pseudoscience ;-)

Rtc, when Popper refers to pseudoscience, he's not referring to pseudoempiricism, but to pseudoscience . (Also please remember that formal science such as mathematics, logic, and statistics also involve falsification, but it is not a-posteriori or emprical falsification.) Of course, if someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll be removing the reference to "reinforced dogmatisms" in due course, thought not today. The edit you made today to the article on pseudoscience, I must admit, seems to reflect Popper's intent AFAIK. Bye for now. ... Kenosis 03:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that I wrote anything about pseudoempiricism. On the other hand, since he never used the word pseudoempiricism, I agree that he is not referring to it when he talks of pseudoscience. But Popper is not referring to falsifiability, either! He is refering to those unfalsifiable theories that are reinforced dogmatisms. This is only a small subset of them. I think my change explains that quite well. I don't think hat the reference to reinforced dogmatisms should be removed, since Popper's reinforced dogmatisms are exactly what makes something a pseudoscience to him. --rtc 04:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I must wonder what your edit summary here intended to mean by the words "you will see that...". Many particpants have been involved in constructing the article on pseudoscience. Take care. ... Kenosis 03:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have written the previous version of this part of the article myself, and now corrected it. At the time I wrote it, I had read only the Logic, and I had overlooked some remarks by Popper in the appendix that what he had seen first as a distinction between science and non-science was in fact one between empirical and non-empirical theories. --rtc 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read some of what you have posted here and I find it logical and well thought out and I see you got for your efforts the 'troll' tag. Nothing new. Anyone who goes against the status quo gets that here. Octoplus 14:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now noticed they are calling you and tenditious editor. From history you have 2 choices: shut up or be banned. Look throught the archives and see how many people have been banned for critcizing the article. Octoplus 12:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Just to warn you, you're getting pretty close to violating the three-revert rule on Pseudoscience. Please hold off on your reversions and discuss this issue on the talk page. Also note that even if you try to continually slip under the limit but keep reverting, this could be considered gaming the system, and is also against the rules. --Infophile 13:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I must warn you not to argue with 3RR warning. I have constantly added sources and references when asked, and was reverted. No comment was given on the talk page, although I have continued to give more and more sources, cited directly, and available on the web. The version I corrected was written by myself. I tried to speak to the reverting user on his talk page, which he deliberately ignored and continued to revert. It is a common practice in controversial articles to try somehow to get people criticizing the article into doing something such that they can be banned according to 3RR. This is gaming the system and bad faith. --rtc 13:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As I count your edits, you're currently at exactly three in the last 24 hours - this is why I said "close to violating ." I'm just giving you a warning in the hope that it will prevent you from making a fourth. Also, please note that the policy doesn't care whether you're editing in good faith, whether you keep adding more sources to make your version better, or whether you tried to resolve it through other means. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but none fit here. --Infophile 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The other user is reverting allegedly because he wants sources. So I added the sources. Because I am doing that, he reverts me again, and demands more sources. Isn't that somehow a little bit absurd? I have two options: Either not question the article, or try it, be reverted and blocked. If you are giving me a warning in the hope that it will prevent me from making a fourth revert, why are you not doing the same favour to the other user? --rtc 13:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The other user is an administrator (who would thus presumably know the policy quite well) with no blocks on record. You, on the other hand, have two blocks on record for 3RR violations (though I'll note that one was undone not long after imposed). You're quite frankly a much greater risk of violating the rule. Also, on the subject matter, you might want to read FeloniousMonk's edit summaries; they give his rationale for reverting. If you already have and disagree with it, you can bring it up on his talk page or the talk page of the article. --Infophile 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As I already said, I have written to the user on his talk page, User_talk:FeloniousMonk#Pseudoscience The user ignored this and kept reverting. He seems not to be interested in discussion. --rtc 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't give you the right to violate WP:3RR (which you haven't yet, I'll note, but you shouldn't edit-war over it anyway). And if I may speak for him, I think he intended to give a response through his edit summaries (though I can't be sure). Of course, he isn't the only arbiter. Feel free to bring up your case on the article talk page, and if you can get other people to support your version, they can revert back to it for you. --Infophile 14:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus first is not needed for editing wikipedia, and I tried hard to discuss on the talk page, but there was no reply for some time, and now there are two replies, but still no argument. I provided sources and yet today added another source that is very clear. Either give a real argument, or stop reverting, you have no right to revert my edits simply for such claims as consensus allegedly being generally against me. That is mobbing. Stop that and start discussion if you have anything to say. Claiming such things is especially ridiculous since I have written the part of the text which I am correcting myself. --rtc 14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that WP:BOLD is an important part of editing Misplaced Pages; however what we have here amounts edit warring. The first time you inserted your interpretations, you were covered perfectly by WP:BOLD. The second time, not so much. Now, it's gotten completely irrelevent. Once it gets to this point, the best thing to do is step away from revert warring on the article and hammer it out on the talk page (preferably leaving it at the original version in the interim). I know you've tried to do this, but as I've explained, your lack of response is likely more a case of people not bothering to do all the work to respond than it is a case of people not objecting.

One other point that's important here: Misplaced Pages is primarily a tertiary source. The facts in articles should, when possible, be based on reliable secondary sources. Popper's original writing counts as a primary source. What we want is some other reliable source who has review what he's said and drawn interpretations from it, and then we report those interpretations. Interpreting ourselves amounts to original research. --Infophile 14:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But the article currently cites primary sources, not secondary ones, and in fact secondary sources are very rare in general on Misplaced Pages. I am trying to correct what is claimed about what these primary sources allegedly say. There's really not much interpretation to be done about sources by Popper. I referred people to reputable secondary sources about Popper, such as Hacohen, Maggee, Bartley, Keuth, Niemann and Corvi. Noone seems to use them. --rtc 14:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

For general troublemaking on the ID article, I've blocked you for 24 hours. And if you do not reform your behavior after this block expires, you can expect further blocks. Raul654 15:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Rtc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked in bad faith. Editors in Intelligent Design have worked deliberately and systematically towards blocking me by endless provocations. For example see the brazen provocations at Talk:Intelligent_design#Moved. I did not do anything more "general troublemaking" than the editors of the article. Why am I blocked, and they not? Blocks are not punishments and blocks are not for getting rid of people who criticize your article.

Decline reason:

Misplaced Pages is not a conspiracy. Is it possible the problem might actually be at your end? — Spartaz 16:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocked for 'general troublemaking'? I told you you cannot disagree with the status quo here. And now you are a conspiracy-finding paranoic. Octoplus 19:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that's helpful. Orangemarlin 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And quite profound as well. •Jim62sch• 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Will you two please stop the trolling? Thank you. Octoplus 10:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Go back under the bridge. •Jim62sch• 18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Lake Trout are biting, so I think I'll have to continue. Orangemarlin 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you two stop wasting space here with silly comments? Thank You. Octoplus 11:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as soon as you stop filling the talk pages with silly comments. Oops, I guess you were blocked and banned already. My bad.--Filll 15:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to be too sarcastic now. Creepzerg3 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rtc, you do not have long here

Once you are accused of being Raspor that is the signal you will be banned. Put in your email address so I can contact you.

I have determine that you are not in fact Raspor, despite the great similarities in style of editing. I apologize for the accusation, and I have asked that it be withdrawn. Orangemarlin 09:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Verisimilitude (literature)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Verisimilitude (literature), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://encyclopedia.topliterature.com/?title=Verisimilitude. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 19:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been moved from the verisimilitude wikipedia article, from which it was taken on given page, stupid bot. --rtc 19:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is unfalsifiable

The section starts with a blatant lie ("Falsifiability was proposed by philosopher of science Karl Popper as a way to distinguish between science and pseudoscience") and goes on distorting the facts. It implicitly attributes to Popper a criterion philosophy, a philosophy trying to find criteria for goodness of something or good reasons for something. Popper himself actually rejected this view and falsifiability does not have the purpose which the section implicitly presupposes. Popper not only was not a philosopher of science, he harshly criticized the whole idea of such a philosophy, as you can for example read in his essay "On the non-existence of scientific method". Passages such as "In response to this criticism of evolution, numerous examples of potential ways to falsify evolution have been proposed. J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era" (more recently, Richard Dawkins has made a similar observation)." display the incompetence of the writer: It was actually Popper himself who mentioned and discussed such arguments years before any of the cited sources. Popper has written more than a book about evolution, a fact which the section manages surprisingly well to not even mention once. It also fails to say why Popper opposed evolution in its naturalistic interpretation in the first place, and it fruther fails to say that he never changed his mind about that, and it also fails to say that Popper was from the very beginning a stark opponent of naturalism, scientific method, evidence-based science, support for theories, probability of theories and anything else put forward to give good reasons for or to justify belief in scientific theories. Or, to put it in Popper's own words: "The purpose of demarcation has been misunderstood completely." --rtc (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok very good. So who invented the notion of falsifiability then, if it was not Popper? And what examples of falsifiability did Popper present before Haldane? And do you have WP:RS for these points we can look at?--Filll (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Popper did invent falsifiability, but not for the purpose it it claimed to have here. Popper presented the example of a car in the Precambrian era, but noted that it would contradict only common descent, not the theory of evolution by natural selection (which Popper never opposed, however). I do not understand what makes a source reliable. All this is clearly written in Popper's works themselves, but people obviously never read them. Did you? If you want to know a source for any specific point, feel free to ask. --rtc (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I am confused. You started with the statement The section starts with a blatant lie ("Falsifiability was proposed by philosopher of science Karl Popper as a way to distinguish between science and pseudoscience". In what way is this a lie? All the papers and references I have read agree with this. I have not read his original works of course. I might have to eventually.--Filll (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a lie that Popper ever proposed falsifiability to distinguish science and pseudoscience. In fact, the word pseudoscience does not even occur once in The Logic of Scientific Discovery. It is not a coincidence that all your sources say something different about that. The distortion of Popper's views by the such-called mainstream interpretation of his views is well-known and well-documented and was criticized harshly and opposed to by Popper himself. Popper even noted that he thinks that most people writing about his work never actually read it. --rtc (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to evaluate many of your claims without links to peer-reviewed papers or reliable sources of university sites or book excerpts. You seem to rant on and on about how we have everything wrong, which might be correct. So what can you show us so we can check your claims?--Filll (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand exactly what you mean. If I point you to "Les chemins de la vérité. L'Express va plus loin avec Karl Popper", In: L'Express, (1598, 26th February) 1982, 82-88, for the car example, I suppose that does not fulfil your requirements. It is an interview with Popper in which he summarizes his views on evolution (I suppose you don't want to read the books in which he writes about the issue at length; Knowledge and the body-mind problem and Objective Knowledge). It is neither peer-reviewed nor a "reliable source" (whatever you mean by that). Poppers works themselves are also neither peer-reviewed nor "reliable" (as he himself would most certainly deny that they are, as he held that reliability does not exist), and many works and papers that are peer-reviewed and claim to be reliable contain this false information. Popper criticizes criterion philosophy literally under that name in the Addendum to The Open Society and Its Enemies. "On the non-existence of scientific method" is the preface to Popper's book Realism and the Aim of Science, and his stark opposition to the claim that something like scientific evidence or scientific data exists can be found, most strongly, in Karl R. Popper, David W. Miller: A proof of the impossibility of inductive probability. Nature 302 (1983), 687–688 (which is also just a letter to the editor, not a peer-reviewed paper) BTW, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, the work that introduced falsifiability, in fact was a criticism of positivism, which is the general view held by the people that are nowadays so hostile towards pseudoscience. Of course there is also some truth in the claim that falsifiability and pseudoscience are related; Popper's initial problem long before publishing anything about it was to distinguish science and pseudoscience (as you can read in his autobiography in P.A.Schilpp (Ed.): The Philosophy of Karl Popper), and the chapter "Science: Conjectures and refutations" of Popper's Conjectures and Refutations makes some very ambiguous statements about that. ---rtc (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You are giving me good examples of why all philosphy is nonsense and why all scientists ignore the horse manure produced by philosophers.--Filll (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Popperians could not agree more. In fact, W.W.Bartley, a student of Popper, once wrote: "Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue. If he is on the right track, then the majority of professional philosophers the world over has wasted or is wasting their intellectual careers. The gulf between Popper's way of doing philosophy and that of the bulk of professional philosophers is as great as that between astronomy and astrology." --rtc (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I only care about Popper since falsifiability and related areas has been used as a weapon by creationists against evolution. It has also become part of US law and judicial practice.--Filll (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, creationists are notorious to take things out of context. Nobody who has ever read Popper's writings on evolution could say that he ever seriously opposed it. Concerning the court thing, I just recently read an article (I don't remember which one anymore) by a Popperian who stronlgy criticized such use of falsifiability. From a popperian perspective, prescribed curricula themselves are the root of all evil, not the question of criteria for things to teach in a prescribed curriculum. Without prescribed curricula, the whole problem disappears. Note: Non-prescribed curricula does not mean that parents choose what their children will be taught (such as homeschooling), but it means the children themselves choose what they want to be taught, and it also means that the state enforces the autonomy of the children's choice against any attempts to impose the choice on the children, including by parents, religion, scientific mainstream, or anything like that. That does not mean laissez faire education and it is too complex and nuanced to outline it fully here, but it is certainly quite radical. --rtc (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing you might not be in the United States. If you are, I apologize, but assuming you are not, let me try to explain what is going on here, which is not always apparent from outside. The repeated lawsuits here are because a certain body representing the religious views of perhaps 10% or less of the US population is pushing to have science classes in secular schools supported by public tax money promote their religious views. Not only do they want to make this possible, but they want this to be required, and they are pushing for the capability to put teachers who disagree with this in jail. That is what the battle is about; to have the power to put teachers who disagree with promoting a tiny religious view in a science class in jail. Note that it is legal in the US to promote this view:

• in home schools
• in religious schools
• in private schools
• in public schools in nonscience classes
• in public schools in science classes if the teacher and the teacher's employer agrees (that is, it is voluntary)

The ONLY situation in which there are problems is (1)when the teacher disagrees, and (2) in public secular schools paid for with public money, and (3) in science classes. Otherwise, this narrow religious view can be promoted, with no legal problems. So this fighting is sort of insane, in the United States. And the creationists describe it as free speech and all kinds of other dishonest ways. What it really is about is forcing nonbelievers to promote this religion with other people's money in science classes, or go to jail. --Filll (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that I have only a vague idea about the US school system. I am happy that these are non-issues where I live. It is my impression that what you write is missing form Creation and evolution in public education, at least in this clarity. I wish you happy holidays. --rtc (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not write that article. Maybe I should think about contributing there, if I can dredge up some references.--Filll (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Objections to evolution. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. OrangeMarlin 02:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Karl Popper Edits

Hi,

I'm interested in editing a few aspects of the Karl Popper page. I am working with an 80 year old man who was a contemporary of his and a "friend." My 80 year old friend would like to see the intro paragraph made more coherent for a lay person. Comments?

Thanks, Pete --Petebertine (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pete, just go ahead! Don't be afraid to rewrite the intro paragraph, or even the whole article, if you wish. If you have any specific questions or need help, just post to Talk:Karl Popper. Greetings to your friend. What does he think about Misplaced Pages? --rtc (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hacker discussion

It's more than a week after the fact, so I apologize for digging up what may be old dirt, but I've just had this pointed out to me by someone who seems pretty upset by it. Comments like "Your country, and other English speaking countries, or other countries in general are insignificant, unimportant and irrelevant..." seem a bit personal, and may flare up very defensive, nationalistic sentiment in other users who feel singled out, or could otherwise prevent calm, reasonable discussion. Other editors may quite understandably be offended by such a sentiment, so I'd personally appreciate it if you could try to self-moderate such statements in the future. Granted the diff I'm linking is a week old, but I'd rather head off potential problems as soon as possible. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Luna, please don't let you fool by this troll. When I made that statement I preceded it with "I answer to questions by using style of thinking:" and it was followed by "As already said, this would be the answer using style of thinking. Not the style of thinking that I prefer." When Andrew quoted the text in , he took the statements out of context by completely omitting that cruical clarification. --rtc (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That does alter the context significantly, but I could still a reasonable person taking offense to that, either because of the raw statement directly -- context or not -- or because such a sentiment was attributed to themself, effectively putting the words right in their mouth. It's tempting to make points in that sort of fashion, but especially online, posts like that almost beg to be taken out of context and waved around like flags. I don't believe that was your intention, though; I poked around a bit and didn't notice any history of your making such comments; this was more of a "be careful" note, for future reference. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Staying cool while the editing gets hot

Hey. I just wanted to recommend WP:COOL as a good read. I think it's pretty clear that Andrew8127498278917 is trolling, and I think that will be clear to any admin that reviews the situation. Even so, it's probably good if we are all infailingly civil, in both what we write and in edit summaries, even when provoked.

Regards, Nandesuka (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

lol, I thought your edit and edit summary were funny. Enigma 05:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Filed in the "Hacker" article

In accordance with clause (4) of the Arbitration Filing Procedure, you are hereby being notified that you have been mentioned as a contributing party to the article and you can make a statement.

You can find the claim, and make your statement here.

I am required to tell you this information I am the filing party for the arbitration claim.

Andrew81446 (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)