User talk:SteveMcCluskey

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm always excited to see new editors on history of science-related articles, especially (assuming your username is who you are) established scholars. Here is some of the boilerplate for new editors, some of which you might find useful:

---

Welcome!

Hello, SteveMcCluskey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

---

You might also be interested in the History of Science WikiProject, which is an attempt to coordinate work on anything remotely related to the history of science. Its a good place to get feedback from like-minded editors. User:Maestlin in particular might share some of your interests. I hope you find editing Wikipedia to be a rewarding experience.--ragesoss 18:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Dobbs and Jacob

Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs and Margaret C. Jacob (1995), Newton and the Culture of Newtonianism ISBN 1-57392-545-4

p. 9 "Newton was not a skeptic. On the contrary, he seems to have adopted a contemporary response to questions of valid knowledge called the doctrine of "the unity of Truth", a position that was in fact one answer to the problem of skepticism. Not only did Newton repect the idea that Truth was accessible to the human mind, but also he was very much inclined to accord to several systems of thought the right to claim access to some aspect of the Truth. For those who adopted this point of view, the many different systems they encountered tended to appear complementary rather than competitive. The assumption they made was that Truth did indeed exist somewhere beyond the apparently conflicting representations of it currently available. True knowledge was unitary, and its unity was guaranteed by the unity of the Deity. He being the source of all Truth. As a practical matter, those who followed this doctrine of the unity of Truth became quite eclectic, which is to say that each thinker selected parts of different systems and welded them into a new synthetic whole that seemed to him (or her) to be closer to Truth. That was certainly Newton's method, and in the course of his long life he marshaled the evidence from every source of evidence available to him: mathematics, experiment, observation, reason, the divine revelations in biblical texts, historical records, mythology, contemporary scientific texts, the tattered remnants of ancient philosophical wisdom, and the literature and practice of alchemy." [18, 84, 85]

p. 10 "One must realize, however, that in making selections from the various sources available to him Newton utilized a sophisticated balancing procedure that enabled him to make critical judgements about the validity of each. Perhaps the most important element in Newton's contribution to scientific method as it developed in subsequent centuries was the element of balance, for no single approach to knowledge ever proved to be effective in settling the knowledge crisis of the Renaissance and the early modern periods. Human senses are subject to error; so is human reason. So is the interpretation of revelation; so is the mathematico-deductive scientific method put forward by Descartes earlier in the century. Since every single approach to knowledge was subject to error, a more certain knowledge was to be obtained by utilizing each approach to correct the other; the senses to be rectified by reason, reason to be rectified by revelation, and so forth." [18]

"The self-correcting character of Newton's procedure constitutes the superiority of Newton's method over that of earlier natural philosophers, for others had certainly used the separate elements of inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, mathematics, experiment, and observation before him, and often in some combination. But Newton's method was not limited to the balancing of those approaches to knowledge that still constitute the elements of modern scientific methodology, nor has one any reason to assume that he would deliberately have limited himself to those familiar approaches even if he had been prescient enough to realize that those were all the future would consider important. Newton's goal was much broader than the goal of modern science. Modern science focuses on a knowledge of nature and only on that. In contrast, Newton's goal was a Truth that encompassed natural principles but also divine ones as well. He had a deep religious concern to establish the relationship between God and His creation (nature), and so he constantly searched for the boundaries between God and nature where divine and natural principles met and fused. As a result, Newton's balancing procedure included also the knowledge he had garnered from theology, revelation, alchemy, history, and the wise ancients." [18]

references: [18] B.J.T. Dobbs (1991), The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton's Thought Cambridge University Press

[84] Richard H. Popkin, ed. Millenarianism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought, 1650-1800. Clark Library Lectures, 1981-2. Publications from the Clark Library Professorship, UCLA, no. 10. Leiden: E.J. Brill 1988

[85] Arthur Quinn. The Confidence of British Philosophers: An Essay in Historical Narrative. Studies in the History of Christian Thought. 17 Ed. Heiko A. Oberman, in cooperation with Henry Chadwick, Edward A. Dowey, Jaroslav Pelikan, and E. David Willis. Leiden: E.J. Brill 1977

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancheta Wis (talk • contribs) 04:46, 1 October 2006

Galileo Signature

I have traced the signature myself, and have added the source image in the description. Connormah (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Historia Ecclesiastica translations

Hello, I find that I sent a response only to Ealdgyth: like this "It is good that I know how the situation arose: some of the important aticles are just so complex that timing changes and finding the time to do them mean only part of the work is done. As such high quality articles are involved I am reluctant to take it on soon but will look again next week.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)" By today I feel the same, reluctant to take it on, it is easy to make a good move but not carry it out properly. I only have a patchy familiarity with Old English texts and history. Whoever continues work on Bede will have to think seriously about the matter anyway.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating

Just a gentle discussion. 1) The 60,000 years was not mentioned in the scintillating carbon research quoted as reference. So is the reference still valid as a reference? 2) The carbon 14 half life to become nitrogen atom is 5730 (with tolerance plus and minus 40) years. It is also mentioned in Carbon 14 article. May I have more info from you regarding the 60,000 dating limit? Ancos (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi:

1. The text cited says at p. 161: "the characteristics of the underground laboratory of Gran Sasso make it possible to ... extend for these idealized samples the dating limit from 58,000 BP to 62,000 BP." That sounds like the article's "about 60,000 years," so I restored it.
2. Your identification of a single half-life as the maximum dating range is Original Research, so I deleted it.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I thought the carbon dating test lab in the university is always right. So it can be wrong. Let me tell the professor. I think I will edit the 60,000 to "58,000 - 62,000" to be exactly the same with the reference. Ancos (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tycho Brahe apparently under siege

User:Logicus has once again laid siege to the article Tycho Brahe, with all grandiloquent irrelevance. I would appreciate some neutral feedback on the matter. The version of the "Tycho's observational astronomy" section as edited by Logicus was totally unacceptable. Rather than revert it to an earlier revision, I edited it to what seemed to be a more faithful presentation of the sources. But I would appreciate your assessment as well. Thanks, 71.182.244.158 (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

May I just mention that I was glad to see your comments on this subject. I would have thought the broad thrust was permissibly factual and (without claiming to have legally analysed every letter of them) any element of primary-source-interpretation rather small. Terry0051 (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to solicit comment again, but would you mind taking a look at the Tycho Brahe#Tycho's observational astronomy section, please? I have tried to make it a more balanced presentation of the sources, rather than Logicus' antihagiography. But I could use an outside opinion, since arguing with Logicus tends to be counterproductive at some point. 74.98.45.40 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Typo?

Here, you mentioned "tives". I'm not sure what I can help you with, or you mean by that?174.3.111.148 (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so you don't think that I'm ignoring the RfC

I tried to word the RfC at Talk:Celestial spheres‎ in a neutral fashion, as suggested at WP:RFC; and I've refrained from commenting therein, though that doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion. I think that when it seems appropriate, I'll request that an uninvolved admin write a closing statement for the RfC, since it seems unlikely that Logicus will accept anything posted over my name. (He probably won't accept any closure that doesn't advocate the reinstatement of his personal interpretation of the primary sources, but that's a matter for another user RfC or some other process.) Deor (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand and agree completely --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You guys really are paradigms of bad faith editors ! It is not at all likely I will not accpt anything posted in Deor's name if it can be established he is not a McCluskey sockpuppet/meatpuppet. Nor will I necessarity insist on replacement.--Logicus (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess you have difficulty accepting the reality that a substantial number of editors can independently come to the conclusion that you are engaging in Original Research, Point of View pushing, and Disruptive Editing. Deor is not my sockpuppet or meatpuppet; the fact that he initiated this RfC just as I was in the midst of a Wikibreak to attend to Real World issues says something about our lack of coordination. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no difficulty in accepting insubstantially very few editors like yourself can independently come to such invalid conclusions, and for the 2 main reasons I have already clearly stated in the extract of my July 2008 comment on your 2007 RfC posted above.

And on meatpuppetry, your 'User contributions' record clearly shows you were not on a Wikibreak in the period you claimed you were. And the fact that Deor first raised an OR objection in 2007 when he was minding this article at your behest whilst you also claimed to be on a Wikibreak, and the evident way he gets advice and direction from you in this business, and the fact that he has failed to state any reasons of his own why the material is OR, surely strongly suggest he is just your meatpuppet in this matter.

But if Deor wants to say where and why the material is OR in his opinion, I would anyway be prepared to discuss his objection with him. But his RfC question was non-neutral and ill formed as I have pointed out, and nobody has yet agreed with him that it is "OR based on primary and selected secondary sources". And anyway being based on primary and selected secondary sources is not in itself an NOR violation. He needs to find a different objection if he wants to establish OR. --Logicus (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, SteveMcCluskey. You have new messages at Deor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

So where's the OR in the RfC material ?

In your recent RfC comments which alleged the material in question is OR, unfortunately you never identified which of its claims are OR in your view. I would be most grateful if you would now do this so that I may consider how any such breaches of NOR policy may be remedied by some revision(s) should any of your criticisms be objectively valid.

If you can oblige me, I would be most grateful if you would start with the material in the smaller section entitled 'Impetus in the celestial spheres', at least since I imagine it would be less problematical for you on your particular understanding of medieval dynamics, as well as being smaller. So in the first instance, do you claim that particular material is OR anywhere?

And in case you ever thought Wilson's objections were valid, I would also be grateful to know whether you think they have now been overcome by my proposed revisions of the only four sentences he seemed to claim are OR because he claims they are OS.

Thanks in anticipation

--Logicus (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would much appreciate a helpful positive response to this request of 10 days ago. Please try and start to identify claims I have made in articles that you claim are OR. --Logicus (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your unhelpful conduct in raising another anti-Logicus RfC

Rather than help resolve dispute and conflict by identifying what claims I have made that you allege are OR, as requested above to help me try to improve material to make good any possible breaches of NOR policy, instead you have just raised another RfC against me.

But in the first instance as I see it you are in breach of the following policy rule for RfCs on user conduct :

“Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on the user's talk page, or the talk page(s) involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.”

Neither yourself nor your fellow certifier Finell have contacted me on my talk page to make the slightest effort to find a resolution or compromise, or to even state the dispute. In response to my requests for you to do so, you both even refuse to identify any single example of any claim I have made in an article that is OR to help me try and understand your point of view, which I find unintelligible as it is. Thus you create the impression I am just being punished by a little gang of Wiki bully-boys for my repeated exposure and elimination of their OR with failed verifications in Wikipedia articles, including yours.

Secondly, the lead complaint of this RfC is that:

“Since at least 2006, Logicus ... has been engaged in an ongoing program of pushing his own point of view, based largely on original research, in a wide range of articles, chiefly concerned with the sciences and the history and philosophy of science.”

But this is patently false, and yet again as with your first RfC, in an ocean of verbiage we find not a single example of my alleged OR has been provided. So it remains an empty allegation I cannot possibly discuss or respond to rationally. I suggest you withdraw this RfC and begin a rational discussion with me in the first instance to let me know about where and how you think I have committed OR, identifying the specific claims made that you allege are OR, which most amazingly after 3 years you have yet to do. --Logicus ([[User