Revision as of 13:58, 31 August 2005 editFuelWagon (talk | contribs)5,956 edits →RFC← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:24, 29 November 2022 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,135,762 edits →ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
(608 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Old stuff: , , | Old stuff: , , , | ||
== Greetings from TPF == | |||
==Request for Arbitration against me== | |||
We've probably had some interactions here before since you're part of WP:Philosophy too, but I'm terrible with names and just now realized you're the same person I also know from the Philosophy Forums. Hi! --] (]) 00:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
I have filed Request for Arbitration against you and your cabal. --] 02:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Cheers. I haven't done much here for years, but the tedium of TPF has driven me here while I do a bit of recuperating. ] (]) 01:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
:Excellent. ] 02:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Can I suggest again that you get an advocate? See ]. As it stands, your request has a good chance of being dismissed out of hand, and we don't want that. Remove the personal attacks and add the required links to evidence. Have you read ]? ] 02:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Oops. Too late. ] 02:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Non sense: A hypothesis is falsifiable if some observation might show it to be false. == | |||
:::Someone else has inserted the DotSix RfAr at the bottom of the page as a request for clarification. If his RfAr did not consist largely of insults, it would be either a reasonable reply or something that could be merged with the current case. ] 17:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
My first motivation when I started to work on ] was to remove this non sense. Many intelligent and rigorous 10th grade students that try to understand what this means must be very confused. I was confused myself. It could be that many others will be happy with this, but I cannot explain why. Rigorously, if it is possible to show that a law is false, then it has to be false. So, it is not the definition of Popper's falsifiability. Trying to compensate by adding "in principle" does not work. Mentioning just after that one counterexample is sufficient to disprove a law is a good introduction to falsificationism, but it does not make this non sense go away. Falsifiability, in opposition to falsification, is an abstract concept that is not easy to convey in concrete terms. I believe that this is our main point of disagreement. It can only be understood if you separate the logical side from the methodological side. On the logical side, you have a set of observational statements and the law must contradict some of them. It's very simple, when you separate the logical side. Otherwise, it's just non sense. ] (]) 23:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
==Arbitration of DotSix requires evidence in a new form== | |||
:Your background is science? As in, mine is philosophy with a dab of science (undergrad). It's just that you missed the modality in "Rigorously, if it is '''possible''' to show that a law is false, then it has to be false". Not a big issue, since I'd replaced it with the ''might'' sentence. But "A hypothesis is falsifiable if some observation '''might''' show it to be false" is exactly right, not nonsense. | |||
:Let me do a few edits. ] (]) 00:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
:In the future please keep comments associated with the article; as in, on the article's talk page. That way we can get other folk to chime in. This page is for stuff that only concerns me. ] (]) | |||
:: I wanted to address this point personally to you. The fact that it may interest others does not change what was my intention. ] (]) 03:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Demarcation == | |||
It looks like we have to add the evidence against DotSix a second time, in a different form at ]. I have added some already. Scroll down to see the template they want us to use. They also want us to fill out the template at ]. I have already pasted in the stuff from the RfAr including your statement. Hope that is ok with you. --] 02:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks. I'll check it out. ] 07:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Overall the changes of the last few weeks have been positive. The Demarcation section is an exception. The first two paragraphs ramble on about verificationism as a theory of meaning, which is all but irrelevant here;Third paragraph is ambiguous; and no where does it tell me what Demarcation actualy is. ] (]) 21:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
==Troll food== | |||
== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message == | |||
Since you not long ago counseled me to "stop feeding the troll," I was especially amused at the great "feast" you offered him today in the talk page of ]. I'm not being critical on either count, BTW. I understand the good sense behind your "don't feed the troll" admonitions, I just found myself, a sufferer from analytical exuberance, incapable of refraing from my subsequent comments. As to the feast you offered him today, let's hope it's somewhat akin to a farewell dinner. --] 02:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> | |||
:That was quite hilarious, I don't think it was as much for that guy, as it was for the rest of the contributors. Just finished reading it, and I can feel my abdominal muscles. Thank you! --] 20:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
::Like all overindulgence, it is to be regretted in the morning. It seemed like the right thing to do yesterday, but such outbreaks tend to scare off more than just their intended target. It has been pleasantly quiet over at ], ], and ] since I wrote it though. Glad you enjoyed it. ] 20:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
::I think our ''cabal'' needs a name, guys. I suggest, "Cabal Of Rational Earthlings," or CORE for short. --] 14:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC) | |||
</td></tr> | |||
</table> | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=990307860 --> | |||
== Private language argument == | |||
== Philosophy == | |||
{{tb|Talk:Private language argument#Call for rewrite|ts=<small>(just in case you have notifs turned off)</small> by ] (]) 22:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
== Rfc on Falsifiability == | |||
Thanks for the message; I've added my name to the list. --] (] 09:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
Your comments will be appreciated at ]. ] (]) 19:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for the compliment; I'm hoping to do more rewriting, though I'm worried that edit wars might break out again. --] (] 17:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message == | |||
::It wouldn't be the Wiki without an edit war, woudl it? (joke). ] 20:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> | |||
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
== Leadoff Batter == | |||
Thanks for your kind words. I emailed about 6 members of the Arb Committee last night asking them to at least read the proposed injunction and it looks like it worked. 5 of them voted for it this morning. | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
When I was in grade school, if a kid was distracting others by making faces or goofing in some way, the teacher would punish him by making him stand at the front of the class and repeat the performance. Kids realized how stupid they looked so it was quite effective. Alford is in that position now and judging from his hysterical reaction he is finding the experience excruciating. --] 17:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
</td></tr> | |||
</table> | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1056562944 --> | |||
== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message == | |||
:Well done. Not long now. | |||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
:No doubt you noticed the stuff on Getter? ''Now'' he decides to do some reading - but of course completely misunderstands, or more accurately misinterprets, the argument. ultimately, I feel sorry for the poor ignoramus. But I think we have been as fair to him as was possible given his attitude. incidentaly, I agree with the idea of giving him enough rope to hang himself - as was done in the RfC. ] 21:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div> | |||
::Once again, my sympathy for him misleads me. On checking the Gettier article, I find that he hasn't learned to read, but to copy-and-paste. Oh well. ] 22:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
:::I also thought at first that he was sincere-but-dense. But the more I know about him, especially Ancheta Wis's discovery of this Usenet history, I have become convinced that he just an insincere troll and that he pretends not to understand things that he actually does understand. He's been making this claim that belief and knowledge are actually disjoint sets for many years and many people refutted it long before he came to Misplaced Pages. He's known he was wrong for years, but he is incapable of admitting it; and knows that asserting his claim is an effective way of getting people to react to him, which is what he really wants. The proof is the way that he refuses to answer the questions you, me, and Christofurio have put to him. If he were sincere, he would stand up proudly and say "I dont' believe the sun exists." But he knows that would be reductio-ad-absurdum, so he dodges it so he won't have to admit he's wrong. I think he probably knows that Gettier does not support his claim. But he'll pretend not to understand that as long doing so enables him to get a rise out of others. --] 02:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC) | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
::I wouldn't be at all surprised if he did the same thing with the accounts he created; that is, that he created the additional accounts, did not want to use them, could not face asking for them to be deleted, and so made up the elaborate and silly story that they are impostors because of his inability to admit error. ] 06:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
:::His latest response to me in Talk:Epistemology was so juvenile I don't feel my usual chronic-arguer's impulse to reply. He has rebutted himself quite well. I'm glad, though, that I've earned one of his cutesy punning nicknames ("Christo Furious" -- how clever!) --] 19:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1124425177 --> | |||
== DotSix == | |||
DotSix has been blocked under his IP 67.182.157.6, but has made six edits since then using 172.198.185.228 . He is taking ArbCom for a ride. ] 21:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Unlike 67.182.157.6, which seems to be fixed and used only by him, 172.198.185.228 is an ] IP. We cannot block AOL IPs for more than 15 minutes. Since he is not doing any rapid-fire editing, any block would be futile (it would already have expired by the time of his next edit). The ArbCom is widely known for being really slow (which comes to no surprise considering the amount of stuff they have to deal with), so be patient. --] 21:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for the technical explanation. But the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I predict that DotSix's antics will force their hand. ] 21:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
== vprotected == | |||
I protected your user page (]) because DotSix was getting really obnoxious. If you want to edit it, feel free to ask for unprotection. --] 18:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks. ] 21:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
==RFC== | |||
I have withdrawn my certification of the RFC against Bensaccount and moved it to "endorse". He has stopped pushing the scientific point of view and I'm willing to wipe the slate clean. if an RFC isn't "certified" by two editors it will be deleted. Whether you change your vote is up to you. I'm just informing of my change. ] 06:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Yeah, he hasn't been editing either. Obviously, the RFC got his attention. Now, if possible, I'd like to see him come back and edit according to policy. The only way to know if he can do that is for him to make some edits that follow NPOV. I'm willing to withdraw the RFC if that will act as an invitation for him to come back. If he continues to push SPOV, then another RFC will be called for. But he needs to come back before we know if that step would be needed. ] 13:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 00:24, 29 November 2022
Greetings from TPF
We've probably had some interactions here before since you're part of WP:Philosophy too, but I'm terrible with names and just now realized you're the same person I also know from the Philosophy Forums. Hi! --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Cheers. I haven't done much here for years, but the tedium of TPF has driven me here while I do a bit of recuperating. Banno (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Non sense: A hypothesis is falsifiable if some observation might show it to be false.
My first motivation when I started to work on Falsifiability was to remove this non sense. Many intelligent and rigorous 10th grade students that try to understand what this means must be very confused. I was confused myself. It could be that many others will be happy with this, but I cannot explain why. Rigorously, if it is possible to show that a law is false, then it has to be false. So, it is not the definition of Popper's falsifiability. Trying to compensate by adding "in principle" does not work. Mentioning just after that one counterexample is sufficient to disprove a law is a good introduction to falsificationism, but it does not make this non sense go away. Falsifiability, in opposition to falsification, is an abstract concept that is not easy to convey in concrete terms. I believe that this is our main point of disagreement. It can only be understood if you separate the logical side from the methodological side. On the logical side, you have a set of observational statements and the law must contradict some of them. It's very simple, when you separate the logical side. Otherwise, it's just non sense. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Your background is science? As in, mine is philosophy with a dab of science (undergrad). It's just that you missed the modality in "Rigorously, if it is possible to show that a law is false, then it has to be false". Not a big issue, since I'd replaced it with the might sentence. But "A hypothesis is falsifiable if some observation might show it to be false" is exactly right, not nonsense.
- Let me do a few edits. Banno (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- In the future please keep comments associated with the article; as in, on the article's talk page. That way we can get other folk to chime in. This page is for stuff that only concerns me. Banno (talk)
- I wanted to address this point personally to you. The fact that it may interest others does not change what was my intention. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Demarcation
Overall the changes of the last few weeks have been positive. The Demarcation section is an exception. The first two paragraphs ramble on about verificationism as a theory of meaning, which is all but irrelevant here;Third paragraph is ambiguous; and no where does it tell me what Demarcation actualy is. Banno (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Private language argument
Hello, Banno. You have new messages at Talk:Private language argument#Call for rewrite.Message added (just in case you have notifs turned off) by Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Rfc on Falsifiability
Your comments will be appreciated at Talk:Falsifiability#RfC:_Adding_a_challenging,_counterintuitive_but_instructive_and_well_sourced_example_in_the_lead. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)