File talk:John Quiggin enumerative induction.png

first POV tag placement
The editor that produced this is POV pushing see --Africangenesis 10:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You tagged this image as not conforming to the neutral point of view policy, not my comments on a user talk page. If you believe that this image pushes a POV, then you should be able to back that up with reference to the image itself. - Grumpyyoungman01 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is your choice of politically charged examples. The talk page link, points to a possible conflict of interest or vanity motivation, albeit for an idol.--Africangenesis 13:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Global warming may very well be a politically charged example, but this image is not about global warming. It makes no claims about global warming. Whilst the topic of this image is a political one, it is not a highly charged or controversial one. Given that the argument map factually represents an argument and given that it is in the form of a legitimate argument pattern and given that it is not based on a highly charged controversial political topic, on what basis does it violate NPOV? - Grumpyyoungman01 09:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

second POV tag placement (first POV tag replacement)
It still represents an attack on the austrailian, and is not very strong since it lacks a "and so on". Why not change the example to a fictional newspaper, if you are not expressing a personal POV in this attack?--Africangenesis 09:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to play wikilawyers, but you leave me with little option. A quote from NPOV dispute:


 * - "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag"


 * Just because not every person in the world will agree with the conclusion, does not mean that we shouldn't argue about things. The argument is valid and anybody who disagrees with the conclusion will also have to disagree with at least one of the premises. That is fine, if one of the premises are wrong, then the argument provides no support for the truth of its conclusion. The reason I have not included a "and so on" is because John Quiggin leaves that as an assumed co-premise. I could also add this point to the article.


 * So far you have only asserted that it is your opinion that the image is a "gratuitious POV attack on the Austrailian". You have not supported this with reasoning. You have not to date done anything regarding this dispute to justify your placement of said tag. Grumpyyoungman01 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it is gratitious, you are stretching credibility so far to include it here. For one thing, it mischactarizes JQ's argument, if he was making an enumerative induction argument, would would have more examples, and would also have to have considered and perhaps ruled out counter examples before making the induction.  Reaching his conclusion after just two examples, is more of a trust argument by exception.  Even though the Austrailian may have gotten the science right hundreds of times, because it allegedly didn't twice, it can't be trusted at all.  So, not only is your illustration bad, it is gratuitiously about an actual newspaper, when a fictional illustration would work as well, so it is being presented for the truth of the conclusion.--Africangenesis 06:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * - "you are stretching credibility so far to include it here." - You don't back this opinion up.
 * - "if he was making an enumerative induction argument, would would have more examples, and would also have to have considered and perhaps ruled out counter examples before making the induction. Reaching his conclusion after just two examples, is more of a trust argument by exception." - Only two examples are required to form an instance of the argument pattern enumerative induction.
 * - "Even though the Austrailian may have gotten the science right hundreds of times, because it allegedly didn't twice, it can't be trusted at all." - This is the author's argument, I provide it here as a good example of a type. The point in question is whether all of this is presented neutrally, which you have not refuted. - Grumpyyoungman01 06:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You preference for an attack on the Austrailian over a fictional example is evidence of non-neutrality. --Africangenesis 07:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not an attack. - Grumpyyoungman01 11:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Austrailian' cannot be taken seriously on any scientific issue", oh, I forgot, that is a compliment. Should you really be doing argument mapping, maybe you should try politics?  This is taking post modernism a bit too far.   What is the apostrophe for anyway? --Africangenesis 11:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , and  compare with Category:Argument maps - Grumpyyoungman01 12:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
I've got no opinion on the global warming credibility issue, but it appears clear to me that - whether POV or not - the example chosen for this graphic is inappropriate. It's unnecessarily complicated, and the real-world global warming credibility issue distracts from the substance of the graphic, which is supposed to be about logic. What about a simple example like: "Monkeys like bananas", "Example one of a chimpanzee (which is a monkey) eating a banana" and so forth? Sandstein 07:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For an informal logical article, as opposed to straight logic, for full understanding a reader needs to be able to see arguments as they appear in an essay format and then how that relates to logical structure. For a simple, dumbed down example, the one in the image with Fs and Gs will do. Your suggestion regarding monkeys is not so much a real, meaty, example, as a statement of the form of the argument pattern. An example needs to be just that, an example, with a web link for easy reference. By all means you can suggest another example arguing about something else if you think it will help, but it does need to be substantial.


 * "I've got no opinion on the global warming credibility issue", "the real-world global warming credibility issue distracts from the substance of the graphic". - You haven't paid close enough attention to the discussion. I couldn't care less about who does and does not think global warming is credible and Africangenesis does not think the image pushes a POV about global warming skepticism.


 * "whether POV or not" - The request at third opinion was for a third opinion about whether or not this image violates WPs NPOV policy. My first paragraph sets out why a benign argument will not have the same educational impact. - Grumpyyoungman01 11:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Will a false argument have the same educational impact? Isn't your example one of either an ad hominem attack or an overgeneralization, by inferring from two instances in one particular politically charged scientific field, that the Austrailian is untrustworthy on all scientific issues?  Your POV attack on the Austrailian, has the further problem of not being enumerative induction.  Your are using JQ's logical fallacy to illustrate an enumerative induction from just two instances.--Africangenesis 12:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't follow. - Grumpyyoungman01 12:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You failed to capture the structure of JQ's argument. He generalized from global warming, to science.  That is an overgeneralization, which may or may not be correct.  If is far from a pure enumerative induction.  Your premises "not taken seriously" are subjective judgements, not usually used in argument illustrations, as they confuse and complicate the issue.  Only two instances is too few to start generizing even to other global warming articles.  You say the "and so on" is understood"  I don't see evidence of that.  Look at ad hominem, JQ's argument fits that better.  One or two things bad about the Austrailian means you shouldn't take them seriously at all.  JQ engaged in an ad hominem fallacy.--Africangenesis 15:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts:
 * "'He generalized from global warming, to science. That is an overgeneralization, which may or may not be correct.'" - That is not a case of generalization or overgeneralization, that is a case of categorization - a particular thing M, of type F, is a G.
 * "'Your premises 'not taken seriously' are subjective judgements, not usually used in argument illustrations, as they confuse and complicate the issue.'" - You are right. An argument map should go from highly subjective up the top to more and more objective. With the principle of abstraction meaning that more objective premises back up more subjective lemmas. Do you think it desirable to place premises below the current ones?
 * "'Only two instances is too few to start generizing even to other global warming articles.'" - Ok, so it may be the case that JQs argument is an overgeneralization, I will link to the page hasty generalization from enumerative induction. A quote from JQ's piece: "The rest of the editorial contains allusions to all the denialist claptrap the Oz has been pushing for years now". So he does have a "and so on" clause. The truth of the conclusion "The Australian cannot be trusted on any..." is dependent upon this premise. So I should definetly include it in the diagram and point out that whether the image is a hasty generalization or not hinges on this. Which is a premise which is readily easy to disagree with.


 * I don't see how this pattern could fit ad hominem, but I must admit that I find ad hominem and association fallacy really hard to distinguish and don't fully understand either. - Grumpyyoungman01 02:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this will illustrate the overgeneralization better, "This instance of a polar bear which is a mammal is white", "that instance of a polar bear which is a mammal is white", therefore, "all mammals are white". A correct enumerative induction would be: "This instance of a polar bear is white", "That instance of a polar bear is white", and so on.  "We haven't ever found any polar bears that aren't white" therefore, "all polar bears are white".


 * Note for your enumerative induction to be valid, you there would have to be no instances of scientific issues that the Austrailian could be taken seriously on. Just surveying all the global warming articles would not be enough.  Of course, finding a global warming article that the Austrailian could be taken seriously on would also invalidate the enumerative induction.  Now, if JQ was trying to claim that the Austrailian should not be consulted on even those scientific issues where he hasn't made an assessment based on the fact he has found a couple where the austrailian can't be taken seriously, so there is no point in considering them further, the this is not an enumerative induction.  It may be a mocking ad hominem attack that you found a persuasive use of rhetoric.--Africangenesis 11:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made a mistake, because it is an inductive argument and not a deductive argument, for validity, not every example of a thing of type F that is a G needs to be found for it to be valid. Note that inductive validity is more of a proabability than actual validity. Anyhow it is a real argument pattern and is used informally like on JQs blog in the manner that he uses it.
 * "Of course, finding a global warming article that the Austrailian could be taken seriously on would also invalidate the enumerative induction." - So JQs argument is quite easy to refute, all it takes is one instance of a thing of type F which is cleary not a G.
 * "It may be a mocking ad hominem attack that you found a persuasive use of rhetoric." - I disagree that this image is that, but that sort of thing can be argument mapped as well. All is revealed for what it is when it comes to persausive rhetoric. - Grumpyyoungman01 11:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't think you are losing your time?
Hi guys,

I don't want to be rude, but frankly, don't you think you are wasting some unconsidered time on this issue? I don't know who's right on the NPOV question concerning wiki's laws, but why not simply replace the existing journal name with a fictious one? Is there any inconvenient to that?

Then we will all be able to go and improve other wikipedia articles which really deserve spending some time on them...

Sincerely.--OlivierMiR 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)