User:AntelopeInSearchOfTruth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Fun Tidbits about AntelopeInSearchOfTruth

General Info

This user is an ageless immortal.
World citizen badge.svg This user is a Citizen of the World (Terra, ).
The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg This user has left the planet Earth 0 times.
♂ This user is male.
Leo.svg This user is a Leo.
This user was born in the year of the Dragon. Dragon.svg
ag This user identifies as androgynous.

Editing Capabilities & Tenets

en This user is a native speaker of English.
en-5 This user can contribute with a professional level of English.
Logic This user knows the form of Logical argument and if you're editing Wikipedia, most likely you should too.
BIAS This user does his best to avoid Disconfirmation bias and Confirmation bias. You should too.

Beliefs & Interests

Koebel.jpg This user advocates the use of more cowbell.
A coloured voting box.svg This user is interested in politics.
Scale of justice.svg This user is interested in law.
Nuclear dancer.jpg This user enjoys dancing.
Emoji u1f6b2.svg This user enjoys bicycling.
Run This user is a recreational runner.
MillaSagradaFamilia2005 01.jpg This user has completed a 5K.
MillaSagradaFamilia2005 01.jpg This user has completed a 10K.
MillaSagradaFamilia2005 01.jpg This user has completed a half marathon.
BtVS This user is a fan of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series.
AtS This user is a fan of the Angel TV series.
firefly This user thinks Firefly is the greatest television series ever made.
Tilted T Circle.svg This user enjoys playing Magic: The Gathering
cvg-2 This user is an intermediate gamer.
Xbox-Console-FL.jpg This user prefers the Xbox and the PlayStation 2 to the GameCube. PS2-Versions.jpg
+ This user plays retro games. Circle - black simple.svg Circle - black simple.svg
~_~ This user is a definite fan of anime.
SK This user enjoys the works of Stephen King.
ASoIaF
This user is reading A Song of Ice and Fire and considers it a fine example of high fantasy.

About Me

What else? An Antelope in search of truth, justice, etc.

My main concern is that content from sources is not always presented in an objective way. It can be easy to misrepresent what the source material is saying if it is examined without an eye for proper Logical argument form.

I haven't had too much time to fiddle with my page. There's a dump of UserBoxes to your right and some other things below.

Breakdown of Logical Argument form[edit]

  • In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion [[1]] called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises [[2]].
  • Some practical synonyms for "conclusion":
  1. Claim. (E.G., "You make the claim that....")
  2. Point. (E.G., "My point is that.....")
  3. Stance. (E.G., "Bob's stance regarding 'X' is....")
Similarly, if anyone says they believe something to be true, "because of this or that", that "something" is their conclusion.
  • The reasons that support a conclusion are referred to in logical terms as "premises". Some practical synonyms for "premise":
  1. Grounds. (E.G., "On what grounds do you believe that?")
  2. Proof. (E.G., "What proof do you have that my client was there?")
  3. Justification. (E.G., "what is your justification for leaving early?")

Simply put, the conclusion is what is held to be true, and premises support that truth.

Application[edit]

To be clear, I am not saying it is the job of Wikipedians to judge the truth of a given conclusion or its premises. But if we are going to present someone's argument/belief/stance regarding a particular subject and they have supplied premises in support, then we should be present the conclusion and the premises, if we are serious about accurately depicting the argument.

We do not judge the truth but we should try to present data accurately so that readers can judge for themselves. Simply put, we show it, we don't try to interpret it.

Submitting just the conclusions of an argument, bereft the premises, often leads to a inaccurate (sometimes ridiculous) representation of that content that is not present if it were viewed at its source.

Organization Schemes[edit]

I'm also big on how articles are organized. Articles should be easy to read. Sections/sub-sections of an article should have internally consistent organization schemes.

A Couple Things that might be helpful[edit]

WP:NPOV - Neutral Point of View
WP:ASR - Avoid Self References.
WP:CITE - Cite Sources
WP:WTA - Words you might want to avoid
WP:V - Verify your sources.
WP:WIN - What Wikipedia is NOT
WP:WQT - Wikipedia Etiquette
WP:DR - How to resolve disputes; valuable information for when you're not able to make your point and people are resorting to personal attacks.  ;)
WP:CON - Consensus
WP:SW - For any editor working on an article that involves a story that readers might not want ruined.
WP:AGF - Assume Good faith
WP:NPA - NO personal attacks
Uncyclopedia - An outlet for those overly frustrated people at government desks who insist on vandalizing.  ;)
WP:BARN - Barnstar awards

Are You Incompetent?!? Who Knows?[edit]

The Universe is not without irony! Research has apparently indicated that incompetent people are faced with a perpetuating cycle; the very skills necessary to recognize competence are absent in those who are incompetent. They lack the ability to recognize competence in others AND incompetence in themselves. [[3]]

Scary thought, really. The researchers themselves stated the realization that they would probably not be able to tell if they were incompetent in a particular area, given the findings of their study. In any case, it's good justification for continuing to question thyself.  ;)