Talk:Relevance paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
 

Bad Example[edit]

Wind energy is a bad example - the example leaves out the fact that even though the wind is always blowing somewhere, the means of transporting that energy over vast distances doesn't exist. That is to say, the wind may be blowing on the West coast of the US, but it's not possible to transmit the energy generated to the East Coast (too much energy is lost in the transmission, such that it's not cost effective or fiscally feasible) - so in the fact, the person who doubts the efficacy of wind energy would actually be correct in their belief that wind energy is not a viable alternative. The example given to demonstrate the Relevance Paradox is a poor example - a better one is needed, such as a trial lawyer being unaware of behavioral theory - it's not something a lawyer would think of when defending a corporation against monopoly charges, or when prosecuting a wanted murderer, but if they did know of the theory, it would be very relevant in their attempt to convince a jury of their cause. Xmacro (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Tidying[edit]

Spent five minutes or so trying to tidy up this article (which was really confined to the writing rather than the content). It probably needs to be wholly re-written and researched. - CharlesC 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This section is rather suspect:

Or the astonishing and not widely appreciated fact that the UK wastes heat from power stations equal to the entire import of natural gas for heating, which is an amazing example of the relevance paradox and hierarchical incompetence of particular relevance 30 years on now that fears are growing about inadequate reserves of natural gas and global warming.

Waste heat is really just waste heat. Heat is the least organized form of energy, and although efforts are made to minimize energy loss through waste heat, you can't eliminate it in any energy-conversion process. Waste heat is not an oversight; in fact, it is very well-knowns, and is a fundamental part of Thermodynamics. i.e. not an example of the relevance paradox. - --Metalfilter 06:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that the waste heat in the UK could be used to heat all the houses in the UK instead of importing extra gas to do the heating - this is what they do in Scandinavian countries..........13:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talkcontribs)

Deletion deleted[edit]

I have removed the deletion tag, on the basis that there are numerous, examples of people and organisations making decision which turn out not to deliver what they want, when the informatin that would have helped them make a correct decision, although avaible, was not sought, since its relevance to the matter in hand was not appreciated. It is a paradox becaseu the relevance only becomes obvoius when you have the information.

Original Research[edit]

I added an {{OriginalResearch}} tag due to my doubt about the author of the article and the content. The article has citations but they seem weak from my perspective and a book/news/journal search for additional citations turns up nothing related to the article's content. The subject of OR and the author have been raised before (see User talk:Engineman) as the original author has previously been thought to be David Andrews, an author cited in the article, although this has not been clarified. Barkeep Chat | $ 16:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak article[edit]

Citation references (problems mentioned by previous editors) First, I did not immediately find this concept mentioned in citation No. 1 (it may have been there but buried). No. 2 was an article in the Guardian for a specific date. This would require searching within the whole newspaper for the date in question - not an acceptable reference format. Further, even if precisely referenced, a newspaper article would not normally be considered a substantial source for a meaningful concept unless the author made a strong point, or was a well-known personality.

Substance I find that there is less here than meets the eye. Essentially, people are ignorant and don't realize or believe other information could help them. So what else is new? Isn't this why we have education?. It's why Diderot's Encyclopedia and other massive compendia of information that emerged as part of the Enlightenment made possible leaps forward in technology, in standard of living, etc. It also seems to strain to call this a "double bind". If people don't know something (and don't search), isn't it a logical assumption that that they're not aware or don't feel that other data could be helpful to them? I don't think that useful knowledge or wisdom is enhanced by giving sophisticated-sounding names to rather simple relationship as thought they were new insights. In short, I would call "relevance paradox" a new term but not a new concept.

I favor detrivializing Wikipedia: taking action on this item by challenging the author to justify it better, including credible referencing. If this is not done, then one might encourage the author to withdraw it, or if that is declined, attach more visible demerits to it. Mysmakar (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mysmakar, welcome to Wikipedia. If you ask for deletion, you might want to read our deletion policy first.
Google Scholar yields 50 hits for "relevance paradox", containing at least two hits supporting the definition already contained here. There is related relevance paradox of mathematics, and there seem to be other uses. This establishes the notability of the topic beyond doubt. Scirus gives 92 results.
"new term but not a new concept": We report about the terms. Concepts are the result of research, which we don't do.
"detrivializing Wikipedia": You probably want to start with The Simpsons. ;)
Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)