User talk:Blueboar: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:45, 12 September 2009

Welcome to Blueboar's talk page... I am away from my computer right now, and can not respond to you. Please leave a message at the sound of the beep.....

(Please note that I regularly delete messages after I have read them. If you have posted a message for me, and no longer find it on the page, it means I have seen it. I do not archive old messages. If you need to retrieve something posted on this user page, you can find it in the page's history.)

BEEEEEP

Messages

Re: 2-Aug comment in the discussion for WP:NOR.

I think it matters a great deal whether or not valid logic is used. I do not wish for nor favor using logic (good or bad) to reach tenuous or breakthrough conclusions. I do favor using logic to reach conclusions that help better clarify understanding of a topic. If the example used to illustrate why and how synthesis is wrong is actually an example of bad logic then the example falsely prejudices the case against synthesis that uses valid logic. Again, even though the logic used is valid I do not advocate synthesis as a means of advancing a position. Rather, I deplore the rather ignorant idea of banning all logic just because sometimes false logic is used to advance a position. If there is an example of bad synthesis that uses good logic let's have it. If not then perhaps it should be clear that the banning of all logic is too extreme: the only examples possible are actually examples of bad logic, which of course ought to be banned/removed.

I think that now it is more or less accepted that simple math can be done without violating any part of WP:NOR. At one time my example of simple math that seemed to be prohibited by NOR was the math that shows that a one degree increase in average global temperature is an increase of less than 0.4%. I believe that this is significant: a one degree change is not a huge change (and specifically a one degree change is not as large as it would appear when the Celsius scale is used for global temperatures. Celsius is not the appropriate scale for anything much that involves thermodynamics.) I think my simple math (which I've not seen anywhere, perhaps because it is so simple and so obvious) fosters a greater understanding of man-made global warming: a one degree change is not a large change at all. This does strike a blow against the deniers but as it is completely valid in every way it is entirely proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is not OR to reach this obvious and rather simple conclusion. ("Obvious" was discussed earlier and the discussion can be found at least in part on my talk page.)

Summary: If the example that supposedly shows that synthesis (use of logic to connect two facts from different sources) is actually an example of bad logic then the example fails to show that synthesis is incorrect. The example does show that bad logic should not be used - a showing I welcome. But that's not how the example is being used and I find that to be unacceptable.

But I erred in posting at all, given my resolve to not do so. I am pleased to note that my transgressions with respect to this resolve are infrequent. Minasbeede (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 == Messages ==
+Re: 2-Aug comment in the discussion for WP:NOR.
+I think it matters a great deal whether or not valid logic is used.  I do not wish for nor favor using logic (good or bad) to reach tenuous or breakthrough conclusions.  I do favor using logic to reach conclusions that help better clarify understanding of a topic.  If the example used to illustrate why and how synthesis is wrong is actually an example of bad logic then the example falsely prejudices the case against synthesis that uses valid logic.  Again, even though the logic used is valid I do not advocate synthesis as a means of advancing a position.  Rather, I deplore the rather ignorant idea of banning all logic just because sometimes ''false'' logic is used to advance a position.  If there is an example of bad synthesis that uses good logic let's have it.  If not then perhaps it should be clear that the banning of all logic is too extreme: the only examples possible are actually examples of bad logic, which of course ought to be banned/removed.
+I think that now it is more or less accepted that simple math can be done without violating any part of WP:NOR.  At one time my example of simple math that seemed to be prohibited by NOR was the math that shows that a one degree increase in average global temperature is an increase of less than 0.4%.  I believe that this is significant: a one degree change is not a huge change (and specifically a one degree change is not as large as it would appear when the Celsius scale is used for global temperatures.  Celsius is not the appropriate scale for anything much that involves thermodynamics.)  I think my simple math (which I've not seen anywhere, perhaps because it is so simple and so obvious) fosters a greater understanding of man-made global warming: a one degree change is not a large change at all.  This does strike a blow against the deniers but as it is completely valid in every way it is entirely proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  It is not OR to reach this obvious and rather simple conclusion.  ("Obvious" was discussed earlier and the discussion can be found at least in part on my talk page.)
+Summary: If the example that supposedly shows that synthesis (use of logic to connect two facts from different sources) is actually an example of bad logic then the example fails to show that synthesis is incorrect.  The example does show that bad logic should not be used - a showing I welcome.  But that's not how the example is being used and I find that to be unacceptable.
+But I erred in posting at all, given my resolve to not do so.  I am pleased to note that my transgressions with respect to this resolve are infrequent. [[User:Minasbeede|Minasbeede]] ([[User talk:Minasbeede|talk]]) 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)