Talk:Ad hoc

Someone should describe the "ad-hoc" methods of wifi connectivity Gigitrix 09:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this page should be split into individual articles concerning each section. Just a suggestion...

"Ad hoc is a Latin phrase which means "for this [purpose]."

and

"It comes from the Latin phrase meaning 'to the thing'."

Which is it?

Both, probably. I suspect one is the literal translation, while the other translates the meaning. --Carnildo 18:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what about ad hoc-announcements of companies listed at a stock exchange. why is it not in yet?

"Ad hoc means to have great love for a person. People use it when they are edging towards sexual relationships. It is generally used in coultures such as greece and spain."

Seemed like vandalism to me... reverted it... 75.70.125.3 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?

Whether or not you agree with whether or not these controversial fields of studies, you have to admit that this reads like an attack on these fields, rather than a neutral assessment of what an "ad hoc hypothesis" is. Jhskulk (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--

Well, I disagree; it puts them in far too good a light. Particularly galling are claims like this:

In these areas, however, it should be remembered that in numerous experiments sensitive instruments, and even random number generators, have been shown to be subject to statistically significant influence by the intention of an onlooker, thereby demonstrating that neither the empirical scientists/sceptics nor the paranormal researchers/true believers have formulated conceptual models capable of encompassing the observed phenomena without ad hoc hypothesis ^{[citation needed]}.

Now, I'll buy that RNGs have *appeared* to be influenced by onlookers, but that they *actually* have is a quite extraordinary claim, and wants a fair bit of proof. Something like this shouldn't even get near wikipedia when uncited.

As for the conclusion this paragraph draws, it's just rubbish: a pseudoscientific attack on science.

I don't understand how creationism has been "empirically tested," as the article claims. I feel it should be removed from the list in the ad hoc hypothesis section.