User talk:WhizzyDude

Welcome![edit]

Hi WhizzyDude! I noticed your contributions to Signal and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ~Kvng (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, cheers! WhizzyDude (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logic lead edit[edit]

I wanted to elucidate a bit more on why I think the original lead for Logic is equivalent to your version in fewer words: if I'm understanding correctly, there was a sense of "distastefulness" at use of the word "correct", but ultimately your explanation also has notions of correctness in words like "rationale" etc. Ultimately, I understand the impulse to explicate that said correctness may be relative or internal or multiple right away, but I think in its present state the lead presents the subject in an uncluttered way.

I hope that makes a little sense, but I wanted to be more explicit, hope this finds you well! Remsense诉 07:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the reinforced lead instigates a broader set of interpretations that a subject such as logic entails. I respect and welcome it. I am glad that the objections were addressed and acknowledged. However, I must warn the editor that our achieved consensus still wouldn't safeguard the lead from further imminent contest. The use of word "correct" although is relevant, "seems" misleading and highly dubious. (To emphasize why, if we do concur that induction and abduction are bonafide modes of reasoning and thus logic. Should we conclude that they are "correct" in the sense of their reflection of truth. I, with great deference, suggest the word "plausible" to capture such ampliative form of logic.)

Moreover, the underlying intent presented here is not explicit on the page. I still would advise a thorough revision. Cheers. WhizzyDude (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it being "the study of correct reasoning" alleviates this sense, as it is not simply "correct reasoning". It is fairly clear to me. I would suggest discussing further tweaks on the talk page first, since I've expressed a preference for its current state. Remsense诉 08:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do respect your decision to present this subject as is now. Your good faith intent is conspicuous. As I have said, currently, we are having a great success in enshrouding the lead in formidable ambiguity. I have already expressed my discontentment. I am not motivated enough to further this discussion. Good day. WhizzyDude (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]