Talk:Charles Sanders Peirce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Charles Sanders Peirce was a Mathematics good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 17, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Top-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B+ class, High-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
A-BB+ Class
High Importance
 Field: Mathematicians
This article has comments.
WikiProject Statistics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Chemistry (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Removing claim about Logistic Regression[edit]

I'm removing the claim that Peirce used Logistic Regression. It is uncited, and would, if true, make him the inventor of the technique. An article entitled "The Origins of Logistic Regression" does not name him at all: http://dare.uva.nl/document/204 Larstebil (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed sentence for time being - van Heijenoort etc.[edit]

I've removed the following sentence from the article for the time being because the logic historian Irving Anellis indicated at peirce-l that it mis-states van Heijenoort's view and that it's generally problematic, at least in its current form. The sentence has long been in the article and I'm not in a good position to check the references, at least not quickly. It does touch on an important issue and I hope that it can be gotten right with some professional help.

Jean Van Heijenoort (1967),[1] Jaakko Hintikka (1997),[2] and Geraldine Brady (2000)[3] divide those who study formal (and natural) languages into two camps: the model-theorists / semanticists, and the proof theorists / universalists. Hintikka and Brady view Peirce as a pioneer model theorist.

The Tetrast (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

The sentence seems to me quite right about Hintikka (having read the article cited, and other work by him), and the issue to be substantial. Can't speak for Brady. (Greatcathy (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC))

I removed it because of discussion with logic historian Irving Anellis at peirce-l. I tried to cajole him into framing a revision that captures the (apparently complicated) truth in his view, but my cajolery failed and I got increasingly mixed up (I'm no expert in this particular matter though I get that it's signficant and interesting). I hope you don't mind waiting, I'll supply you tomorrow with links to the discussion, see what you think. The Tetrast (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC).
The promised links:
The Tetrast (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

Jon Awbrey's edits[edit]

Why were they rejected? Ceebaby (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested merge of Charles Sanders Peirce with Charles Santiago Sanders Peirce[edit]

Oppose merge. The two articles are not duplicates even though they are about the same person. The article "Charles Santiago Sanders Peirce," about biographical issues relating to his adoption of the middle name "Santiago," is a spin-off from "Charles Sanders Peirce" because of length. Once begun, the "Charles Santiago Sanders Peirce" article increased in its own length. There are already a number of C. S. Peirce spin-off articles; there is yet another biographical spin-off, Juliette Peirce, who is notable only for her being Charles's second wife and especially for the troubles that his traveling with Juliette while separated from his first wife and his marrying Juliette when he did caused in his professional life. Spin-off articles are allowed and even encouraged at Wikipedia. See the Bertrand Russell article. The Tetrast (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

  • redirect Charles Santiago Sanders Peirce is looking like a WP:POVFORK. We don't need a whole article discussing whether he chose a particular name or not, a paragraph is about the right length and indeed we have one, so there is nothing to merge.--Salix (talk): 17:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
    • It is not a POV fork since, as can be seen upon actually examining it, it does not evade neutrality guidelines, nor is it redundant. It is an allowed spinout, see Wikipedia:POVFORK#Article_spinouts:_.22Summary_style.22_articles. It is not about "whether he chose a particular name or not." It is about when and why he took the name, which numerous scholars such as John Deely, Peirce's biographer Joseph Brent, and James Hoopes took as throwing significant light on his relations with William James. It is about a long-persisting and widespread error in Peirce scholarship which was discovered by Joseph M. Ransdell of Texas Tech, recounted by Kenneth Laine Ketner of Texas Tech, in His Glassy Essence, and also pursued by Jaime Nubiola, head of the Grupo de Estudios Peirceanos at University of Navarra, Spain. The subject continually interests scholars and readers because of the unresolved questions. The information in the article is not all in one place anywhere else on the Internet or in a single article or book. The Tetrast (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC).
      I should add that the article expands beyond the discussion merely of the name "Santiago." It becomes also a biographical review, energized by the name issue, of the acts of friendship, alliance, gratitude, and opposition between Peirce and James. The Tetrast (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC).
      I endorse Tetrast's explanation of the use of a spin-off article on biographical question of little relevance to Peirce's philosophical, scientific, logical, and mathematical contributions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose -At first glance, these appeared to me to be duplicate articles, and my original thinking was that rather than merging, one should be deleted. After a more thorough examination, these appear to be seperate noteworthy topics, each deserving of its own article. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

  • oppose a reasonable and notable spinnoff article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Tetrast and Maunus.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm gratified by the support for the separate CSSP article. I don't know the template removal policy, but see no reason to remove the merge template during the next few weeks. Say, Kiefer, you surely noticed here and in other wikis the removal of the claim about Peirce's introduction of logistic regression. The remover's remarks are still on the talk page. I googled around for some support of the claim but found none. In the Peirce text that you cited elsewhere, I didn't find the phrase "logistic regression," and I lack the statistics background to recognize it described in other terms. Is the cause lost? The Tetrast (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC).
  • Oppose - I added a hat note and edited the lead to better identify the topic as Peirce's adopted middle name. I think it's a valid stand-alone topic. Jojalozzo 01:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we've given it plenty of time. I propose removal of the merge template. If nobody responds during the next week or so, I'll just remove it. The Tetrast (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

No further comment having arrived in the last 12 days, I've gone and done it, removed the merge template. The Tetrast (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC).

Truncation of Peirce infobox template - why not just revert?[edit]

Thumperward has revised the whole infobox template system for the Peirce articles. This was completely unnecessary since Template:C. S. Peirce articles was set up so that any part of it could be omitted for a given article by choosing parameters. One consequence has been the omission of the abbreviations key, which had been helpfully located in the info box. Please discuss here why I shouldn't just put the whole thing back the way it was. The Tetrast (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC). Okay, the abbreviations are there but should be unhidden and they look like a mess. I am VERY inclined to just put everything back the way it was. The Tetrast (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Revert and then discuss at Template talk:C. S. Peirce articles, per WP:BRD. Jojalozzo 11:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It would require reversions of considerable changes here at the main Peirce article as well as at that Peirce template, and also some lesser reversions at other Peirce articles. So the discussion could properly take place either here at the main Peirce article's talk page, or at the template's talk page. Therefore the remaining question is, where will the most editors see it? That would be here, at the main Peirce article's talk page. Notices and links to the discussion here should be placed at that template's talk page if not in all the Peirce articles where some reversion might be needed (Thumperward will have already seen it here since he made changes to the main Peirce article here in connection with the changes at the template; otherwise I would have already placed a notice at the template's talk page). Frankly, though, right now I lack the time and energy, though I may neaten up the template's abbreviation key in the meantime. The Tetrast (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC). Inserted a sentence. The Tetrast (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC).
I would still argue for discussing the changes on the template's talk page since that's the core of the issue, with links to it on talk pages of any article that will be impacted. However, this is question is moot if there's no one to do it. Jojalozzo 20:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I could revert but I'm not prepared right now to get into a discussion energized by the urgent feeling spurred by reversions. I was hoping that Thumperward would discuss it unprompted by reversions. I'll get to it though. As for the discussion's location, hardly anybody watch-lists that template, so I'd prefer it here at the main Peirce wiki, with update notifications inclusively reaching the much larger audience of editors who have watch-listed the main Peirce wiki, many of whom may look at their watchlists only once a week or less and thus may never notice the discussion. The Tetrast (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── One easy way to ensure that I've seen a discussion is to drop me a note about it. It's not guaranteed that I'll pick up on something on talk if I'm not notified. The question should really be not "why shouldn't I revert" but "what's wrong with the new code". The previous system was vastly overengineered, containing a large amount of conditional support for situations which happened on only one article (originally a pair, but Charles Santiago Sanders Peirce is not a biography and thus shouldn't have a biographical infobox). It is vastly preferable that we not have templates which are impossible for inexpert readers (or the authors of said templates) to edit, which was the case there. The code is now only ~30% of its original size and is both consistent with other such sidebars and more maintainable, based as it is on the prevailing meta-template system under which the majority of such templates now operate.

If there's anything that really needs further discussion IMO, it's the inclusion of an abbreviations section in the template. Deployed as it is on less than a dozen pages, it may be best simply expanding any uses of these abbreviations in the references where they're used. There are no other examples of citations being abbreviated using a key located in a navigation template to my knowledge. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the overengineeredness of the previous system, good point, I have to agree with that, I overdid it in learning how to do it.
As to the abbreviations, special problems require special solutions. The expansion of abbreviations in the references would reduce readability and add significantly to the KB of the article. Abbreviations have been used in this article for many years, since well before I started editing it, and there are reasons. They are a convenience special to Peirce's vast corpus of writings, the need for multitudinous references, and the way in which relevant text may be scattered through the publications. The abbreviations CP, W, EP are so standard and widespread in Peirce literature that any student of Peirce picks them up and they are useful to know. The use of the same key via a template across articles assures consistency into the future. The placement of the abbreviation key is in order that readers will see it and know where it is at the start. I have limited the number of abbreviations to five, those of the titles of the most referenced publications in the article (an abbreviation for The New Elements of Mathematics used to be included).
Unfortunately I'm still occupied with other things and will be able to be more engaged in a week or so. The Tetrast (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC).
I should add that the "Charles Santiago Sanders Peirce" article is in fact biographical and is not merely the story of his name. See right above this section on this talk page the section "Suggested merge of Charles Sanders Peirce with Charles Santiago Sanders Peirce". The Tetrast (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC).
My impression of the merge discussion was that it was closed without consensus to merge precisely because the subjects are different (one is a biography, while the other uses as its subject a persona or pseudonym). While the article in question may be biographical (it is about Peirce's life), it is not a biography as such and there is therefore no need to duplicate the infobox there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

His length of the meter suggestion[edit]

"Also in 1877, he proposed measuring the meter as so many wavelengths of light of a certain frequency,[27] the kind of definition employed from 1860 to 1883"

Something is wrong with this... as written one has to assume that his suggestion was made during a time when that is what was already done. (I.E. 1877 is between 1860 and 1883)

I don't know the facts to know what part of the sentence needs correcting, but something is obviously wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.98.206.65 (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ van Heijenoort (1967), "Logic as Language and Logic as Calculus" in Synthese 17: 324–30.
  2. ^ Hintikka (1997), "The Place of C. S. Peirce in the History of Logical Theory" in Brunning and Forster (1997), The Rule of Reason: The Philosophy of C. S. Peirce, U. of Toronto.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Brady was invoked but never defined (see the help page).