Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:45, 3 April 2013

Philosophy: Logic Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

History Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Cherry picking criticisms

Please don't pile on cherry-picked criticisms, to the point of violating undue weight. Thank you. Humanpublic (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The items you removed in this edit were all sourced to WP:RS items by professors in the field. Please provide reasons why they are not WP:RS. Do not remove items per WP:Preserve. Do not start a revert cycle, but discuss why the sources are not WP:RS. History2007 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't RS. I said it was undue. Humanpublic (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It will only be undue if there is a long list of other professors who have opposing opinions. So you have admitted that the sources are WP:RS but so far have only provided your "personal opinion" about the statements by these professors. And I saw that you again deleted WP:RS sources. That does not work in Misplaced Pages. These professors are providing surveys of the field per WP:RS/AC and your personal opinion (summarized in Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it) cannot over rule them. I will not revert you now not to start a revert cycle, but you must provide "sources" as to why the items that you deleted are not encyclopedic. You have not done that. Should you fail to do that you need to be reverted, else your actions will be WP:disruptive editing of course. History2007 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not provide any personal opinion about the statements of any professors. I gave an editorial opinion about your edit. And, given that you've lready been caught misrepresenting sources, some skepticism about the large wad of additions--all emphasizing a negative view of this topic--seems fair. Please discuss the problem of UNDUE weight frist. Humanpublic (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? Let me just address your first point only so I will not waste my time with your sourcing claim. Let me just note that your statement that you "did not provide any personal opinion" but "gave an editorial opinion" is contradictory. Your "opinion is your opinion". All the items you attempted to delete are properly sourced and I made sure I added the exact quotes from the sources in the references, so you will not go off on that pointless angle again. The items in the article are used per WP:Scholarship and each addresses a specific issue, e.g. Howell addresses the level of importance to the author (that needs to be mentioned in the article) while Bernecker points out the Pliny issue about Pompeii - a really relevant item given that Pliny's letter is detailed enough to be used by modern scholars to study the volcano, but Pliny never mentions Pompeii's fate. That is in fact an interesting and scholarly item. Your deletion seems to be based on Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it, not that of the sources. History2007 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

For the fourth time, my objection is not based on WP:RS. It is based on undue weight. Humanpublic (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You could say that a 4th time or 40th time, but unless you have sources, it remains your "personal opinion". Users can not just go around Misplaced Pages and delete sourced WP:RS content from publishers such as Cambridge Univ Press, etc. just at will based on Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it. Just yesterday, you were topic banned for disruptive behavior. I am sorry, I see no signs here that the message sent to you through that ban has been received and understood by you. My suggestion would be for you to read WP:V and WP:RS. Has that been suggested to you before? History2007 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I will note that I left a message for user:Minorview who also reverted without substantiating his action with sources. Minorview either needs to provide sources, or his edit which removed WP:RS sources will have to be viewed as disruptive, and reverted. History2007 (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Explain why you think the disproportionate weight given to criticism of the method reflects the general expert consensus. YOU are adding material. The burden of proof is on YOU. Minorview (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The burden is on me to show the material is WP:RS. There is no question that the material is WP:RS and that it pertains to the article. The concept "disproportionate" seems to originate in your mind, and the mind of Humanpublic. You have no source that says it is disproportionate. In Misplaced Pages I do not need permission from you to add WP:RS content that directly pertains to the topic, is properly sourced, and enhances the article, and improves the encyclopedia by explaining different aspects of the issue. If there are substantial other WP:RS sources that invalidate said material, that can be discussed, but so far you have provided nothing to substantiate your statements about disproportionate. Nothing at all, except your own personal opinion. In Misplaced Pages the personal opinion of a user matters not, and sources rule, per WP:V. May I suggest a reading of WP:V? Read that page, carefully. History2007 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, in case you may be thinking of WP:Burden in your statement, note that it states:

"Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

Note that it talks about reliability of sources in the context of verifiability conditions, and is part of the WP:V page, mentioned above. It states that the burden "is satisfied by providing a reliable source", and sources here are fully acknowledged to be reliable. That was why I told you to read WP:V carefully. This issue is over really. History2007 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources stating that there widespread dismissal of the argument of silence. The burden of proof is on you. And check your holier-than-thou attitude. After your additions, the coverage of the subject in this article is not equally balanced between positive and negative, and it is reasonable to demand that you justify that. Minorview (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, you need to read WP:Burden; for it does not work that way. So read WP:V again, and more carefully this time. Now, there are probably a few scattered cases where arguments from silence work - I will look and add a couple in a day or so, but by and large do not hold your breath that all the professors quoted here are suddenly going to do reverse position and love arguments from silence. You just have to accept that your feeling of Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it will not make these professors reverse position. They will not. Unless, of course, you can convince Marco Polo to mention the Wall of China. How he could have missed that is beyond me... Now just accept that he did not see the Wall... maybe he was reading WP:V too carefully during his 15 years there... History2007 (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I looked and will add some items for how they can apply and Lange's classic characterization of the 3 requirements for an arg from silence to be applicable, etc. But really the more one looks the more examples show up the other way, e.g. Magna Carta not having been viewed as that important by authors at the time, but gathering much importance later - showing the lower value of contemporary silence, etc. But Magna Carta is a key historical document so it should really be mentioned as well. History2007 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion of the argument is irrelevant. You're not a source. You add materiual, you need to show that it improves the article. You've stacked the coverage toward criticism, show that such criticism reflects a consensus among experts. Until then, you haven't achieved consensus for your new material. Minorview (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced content

Minorview, did you even read the content you just removed? Did you even notice that the material you just removed included Lange's "3 stage framework for the characterization of arguments from silence" which does not even take sides, but is the classic presentation in the field? Did you notice that I specifically added the item you had asked about, namely that in the few cases of formal analysis these arguments have been considered fallacies? That is the overview of the situation. Do you read before delete? Or do you just hit the revert button by invoking Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it?

And again, you have zero sources of your own. Zero. You are again long on reverts, short on sources. You have zero sources. Zero. This is WP:Disruptive editing by you.

You have again removed fully sourced WP:RS material that describes the key structure for these arguments. You have removed the key scholarly discussion. What do you want? A medal? History2007 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

In any case, you have been reverted by another user now. But do not start a revert cycle, and do not just delete at will. History2007 (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with History2007 and have restored the content Minorview removed. The reason giving for removal was WP:NPOV and that argument doesn't seem to hold as the content was very well sourced. Could I remind Minorview that we concern ourselves with what WP:RS say, not with the WP:TRUTH. If Minorview feels that the content favors one particular view and wants a more balanced article, then that's a fully valid argument. In that case, the way forward is for Minorview to find equally good sources for that view and to include them, not to removed content that clearly fulfills WP:RS.Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough he deleted the sentence: "Another example of a convincing application is the silence of Cicero on works of oratory by Cato; the argument gaining its strength from the fact that Cato was such an important figure in Cicero's Brutus and he would have likely been cited if possible." That was one of the items he deleted! And that nicely builds on the 3rd stage in Lange's characterization, namely that "Event E is assumed to be a type of event which the author of D would not have overlooked". In this case, given that Cicero was reliant on Cato elsewhere the argument from silence works. That was why I wondered if he had even read what he deleted... History2007 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC

Nice job of edit-warring, as you complain about edit-warring. The objection is not based on sourcing. It is based on NPOV. Between Humanpublic and myself, this has been pointed out to you 6 times. You are stacking the article with criticism of the concept. You are changing the conensus version. It is your job to show that your edits improve the article. Show why stacking the article doesn't violate NPOV. Minorview (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Minorview, are you aware of what a "consensus version" is? I feel the question is relevant, as you claim History2007 is changing the consensus. Would you kindly point out what the consensus version is and what users have endorsed it. Nobody but you and HP have endorsed the deletions you want to make, while History2007, Smeat75, Seb and Marauder40 have opposed it. It is beyond me how you decide that your version (two users in favor) is a consensus if four users are opposed.Jeppiz (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The consensus version is the most stable one, which is not the one you just reverted to. I'm sorry, nobody can be considered part of any consensus without contributing a single sentence to the discussion: Smeat75, Seb, and Marauder showed up to revert and leave. That is not what the consensus process looks like. It also, allegedly, doesn't look like a vote, although that is what you are appealing to now. Minorview (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you are a long way from policy (you have cited none, just have you have cited no sources), and a long way from logic, as explained above in the deletion of the items. History2007 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Minorview, you completely ignored my question. Who has expressed support for your claimed "consensus version"? Jeppiz (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any signs of familiarity with Misplaced Pages policy on the part of Minorview - as evidence by the fact that he provided no link to any policy, nor stated one, but just quotes some vague understanding of imagined policy which has no bearing on actual policy. So let me spell it out for you Minorview, WP:CANTFIX states that "WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources." None of those 3 apply here, given that the material involved is certainly not "trivia", certainly not a "tiny minority viewpoint" and is certainly WP:RS. So the long and short of it is that you are on the wrong side of policy Minorview. You have no sources and no policy to support your action; except some imagined policy perhaps. But trust me that "imagined policy" is no policy. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

POV-tagged

Minorview and HP have both raised concerns over the NPOV of this article. This is already enough to add a POV-tag, as it is clear that the neutrality of the article is disputed. I would tend to agree with them to a certain point. There is an unusually large number of sources that are Judeo-Christian and concern religion, and most experts mentioned in the article favor a certain POV. I don't agree with Minorview and HP that the best option is to delete those views (they are well sourced) but I do believe that for the article to be NPOV, we need a better balance between different views. Unless, of course, there is a source that would lend support to the current imbalance as being representative of the academic community.Jeppiz (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine. So let us discuss that. Please provide the list of items used here that are Judeo-Christian. I see only two: Jacobs which is Jewish and in support of arguments from silence, and Timothy Barnes which discusses early Christianity. Are there other Judeo-Christian items here? Regarding the source that states the general view, please see reference item 8 in the article: "Scholarly examinations of the Arguments From Silence (AFS) are extremely rare; when existent it is typically treated as a fallacy." I have done my research here. Magna Carta is certainly not religious, neither is Wall of China, and the Buddhist Monsatic codes are not Judeo-Christian. So let us see which other sources may be Judeo-Christian. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I might be wrong but these references all appear to have a Judeo-Christian focus

• "silence, the argument from". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Ed. E. A. Livingstone. Oxford University Press, 2006.
• M. G. Duncan "The Curious Silence of the Dog and Paul of Tarsus; Revisiting The Argument from Silence" Informal Logic, Vol 32, No 1 (2012)
• "Talmud". A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion. Louis Jacobs. Oxford University Press, 1999 page 261
• Timothy Barnes "Pagan Perceptions of Christianity" in Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to Ad 600 edited by Ian Hazlett et al (May 1991)
  

I might be wrong as I haven't had time to look into all sources in detail. I don't think Judeo-Christian sources is a problem, but I do find it a bit problematic that almost all people cited in the article are in favor of it, very few opposed. As I already said, if there is a good neutral source saying that most academics do support it, then it's another story. This is in no way a criticism of your efforts to find several good sources and including them. That is why I reverted the deletion of your additions and also criticized it. In my view, you've done a good and thorough job. Jeppiz (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

We can just use Lange instead of the "Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" because it was just used as a definition of the term, and drew no conclusion. I replaced that anyway. Duncan is absolutely not a Christian item, because it is in a journal about logic and uses the structure of Lange to analyze two well known cases, Sherlock Holmes's barking dog (as in Silver Blaze) and Paul of Tarsus. Duncan is not a religious source at all. Regarding Barnes, to make a long story short, I replaced Barnes with Amelang that refers to medieval artisans and so there are no Christian references in the article any more now and just one Jewish source:

• Jacobs: "Talmud: A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion."

but that which supports the style of argumentation; and I did not add that source by the way. So with one Buddhist source and one Jewish source, there is no potential Judeo-Christian issue at all. Based on those edits, is the tag needed at all? I do not see why. History2007 (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I separated them into successful, failed and cautious usage and that should clarify it. And most examples now are from history, not religion by any measure. And in any case, I do not know why religious items should be suppressed in any case. History2007 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You grossly misrepresented the Duncan source. The next word after the part you quote is "However...." and the conclusion of the article is that arguments from silence (AFS) have value. The article states that the claims of fallacy assume the AFS is intended as a proof, but no historical argumnet is intended as a proof. This is the third time I've caught you misrepresenting sources and/or adding sources you haven't actually read. Humanpublic (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely incorrect, for I used Duncan per WP:RS/AC where he "surveys the field", not as his own opinion. You have caught nothing. Zero. Zero. Duncan states exactly that, then has a long discussion on Holmes and Paul of Tarsus. Your statement is totally incorrect. And I have of course, of course read the sources. Here is what Duncan concludes himself, as his on opinion:

"I conclude that AFS serves as a dialogical topos best evaluated and understood through the perceived authority of the arguer and the willingness of the audience to accept that authority, due to the curious nature of the evidence that argument employs."

The next sentence where he states that arguments from silence are not mentioned in Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations or Hamblin's book Fallacies is already included in the article (the section on structure) - it was there before you typed this. What he says in the footnote is that interpreting the "silence of by Aristotle and Hamblin" would be an arg from silence itself. So what Duncan holds himself is that AFS are a "dialogical topos" to be evaluated based on the assignment of authority to the arguer. That is all. His overview of the field is represented as is, and the next item is already in the body of the article. History2007 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Prevalence in WP:RS sources that Arguments from silence involve risk and hazard

I think in view of the discussions, I should just go ahead and cite policies and guidelines. In Misplaced Pages articles, weight is assigned to a specific scholarly view as the "majority view" and "minority view" by using the WP:Due policy. This was summarized by Jimmy Wales as follows:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

The WP:Due policy thus states:

"in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public."

So to determine the "majority view", we "consider prevalence in reliable sources" and not "prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors". So it does not matter if HumanPublic, Minorview or 12 other people Wiki-editors assume that scholarly opinion is divided 50/50 on this issue and they need equal weight. That matters not. The determination is made via "prevalence in reliable sources". Is there such a prevalence - I hold that there is not, and I have provided sources in the article to that effect. Am I right? Try to prove I am not by showing prevalence in reliable sources for a 50/50 split, or a source that says "most scholars hold that arguments from silence include no hazards". Just show me source, not source free statements on talk pages. Have I "cherry picked" sources? If so, show it not just hypothesize it, imagine it and then state it; do not just state it without a basis in WP:RS prevalence sourcing.

Now, do we need a source that says "most scholars hold that arguments from silence involve hazards"? Only if we are going to say "most scholars hold that arguments from silence involve hazards". That is where the WP:RS/AC guideline comes in. That is not part of the WP:Due policy, but part of the "Identifying reliable sources" guideline. It states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view."

So here is how it works:

• To assign "weight within the article" and a corresponding amount of real estate, per WP:Due the majority and minority views are determined via the consideration of "prevalence in reliable sources" - here the number of Wiki-editors supporting a view means zero. What matters is prevalence in reliable sources.

• To be able to say "most scholars believe X" WP:RS/AC is used and a source that directly states "most scholars believe X" is needed.

Now, is there a 50/50 prevalence in reliable sources regarding the hazards of arguments from silence? I am categorically stating that not to be the case, and that the prevalence in reliable sources is that they involve hazards, risks and dangers. And I can even provide further references that indicate the prevalence towards the existence of hazards. Note that per WP:Due I do not need a statement that states the prevalence; but we need to make an assessment of the prevalence by providing reliable sources on either side of the issue. Are there many more sources on the other side of the issue? I hold that there are not. Let me say that again: I hold that there are not. If there are, let us see them. Let us see the sources. In Misplaced Pages, sources rule. This is a straightforward application of policy to determine weight via the determination of the majority and minority views. Policy is clear on this. History2007 (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic, and don't know what you mean by 50/50 split. To my knowledge, nobody has ever claimed that any type of historical argument is without hazard, certainly not this one. You're proceeeding as if the question is whether AFS proves anything, and then you point out that most sources say it doesn't prove anything. That's a strawman. Given your dishonesty about the Duncan source (above), and the dictionary of foreign terms, I see no reason to swallow whole your statements about a prevalence of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanpublic (talk • contribs) 23:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

By 50/50 split I meant an equal prevalence of sources that consider arguments from silence as involving hazards, and those which do not. Also you must, must, must stop these baseless statements about honesty/dishonesty of other editors. You must stop this. As usual you are long on accusations, short on sources. There has been no misrepresentation by me, and I have read all sources I have used. None. Now stop it. History2007 (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that is a strawman, because all historical arguments involve hazards. Nobody has ever said that the AFS proves anything. Of courzse there are hazards. The quotes you are adding are heavily slanted toward saying it is "invalid" and a fallacy. That is quite different from surveying its strengths and weaknesses. You are misrepresenting sources and misrepresenting the discourse. Now you stop it. Humanpublic (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note here that user:Humanpublic was topic banned and then indefinitely blocked from Misplaced Pages. History2007 (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not the case. And you are arguing from first principles here again. You are again short on sources, long on opinion. History2007 (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I do not want it to go without a response that no one says "any type of historical argument is without hazard". That is a meaningless argument here given that one could say "all air travel has risk". Of course there are risks in air travel, but the risks associated with hang-gliding are different from those of traveling in a jumbo jet. There are also risks for car travel, and I think traveling by a commercial flight is even safer than driving on freeways, etc. So there are different levels of risk and the whole point about the scholarly statements here is that arguments from silence are in the more hazardous category. So a statement that the hazards of hang-gliding are just part of the hazards of air travel is just meaningless. And the scholarly allergy towards arguments from silence is well reflected in the ongoing warnings about them by multiple scholars, as reflected in the article, and others, e.g. that more recent documents can invalidate them, e.g. the shipping documents from the time of Xerxes which changed the previous picture derived from road documents, Sidon, etc.. I will add that anyway, because it is an issue not even mentioned yet. History2007 (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I also added a section on author's interest now, and included Barnes' analysis. With all these other examples, I can not see why a single reference to Christianity can not appear in the article. There are plenty of other examples anyway. And I do not see any reason for the POV tag, now that there are diverse examples. History2007 (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. An example or two from Christian exegesis or Biblical scholarship would be highly useful, and would not violate either WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is what I think too. And Jeppiz, removed the tag already. There are, however, other interesting issues as well:

• Sometimes the work of one author may be used in an arg from silence convincingly, e.g. Cicero on Cato; and sometimes not, e.g. Cicero on Caelius. That is not in the article yet, but I will add it now.

• Sometimes the information may be scarce because it was deliberately not revealed, e.g. Christians deliberately keeping to themselves in Rome in the many cases.

There are a couple of other examples that can be added (say Henry XVIII theater programs, etc.), and I have added those now - and there may even be more... History2007 (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class logic articles
• Mid-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles
• Start-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles