Talk:Ad hoc

vs heuristic
Perhaps the article should address the following issue.

It seems that an "ad hoc method" does not mean a "heuristic". ad hoc does not imply inexact.

But it seems to be sliding toward that meaning in common usage. I have seen it used that way.

The article equates ad hoc with "provisional". Other sources say they are synonyms. If you believe in the transitivity of synonyms then ad hoc > provisional > tentative > unproven. By this dubious transitivity one could say that ad hoc as in "ad hoc equation" does mean "heuristic" instead of "for a specific purpose".

Not sure what do, just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadamsmar (talk • contribs) 13:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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

Vandalism
"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)

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)

--

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.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.141.93 (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the "Ad hoc hypothesis" section and added citations. Please help expand this section! 12.208.25.100 (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Precise
This whole post is not precise but beats around the bush, restricting just to computer terminology of Ad Hoc networks would help

59.92.64.170 (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, though, the phrase has been used to describe very many other types of things. It would be simpler perhaps, in the same way that it would be simpler to define "mouse" as a physical GUI control device rather than a genus of small mammals, but no more "precise". Hard to see what you're aiming for here. 86.158.69.50 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.132.250 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Restrict to computers?? Not really going to work. Why can't we just put the definition of Ad Hoc, why do we then need to expand onto Ad Hoc Networks? Definition: For the specific purpose, case, or situation at hand and for no other: a committee formed ad hoc to address the issue of salaries. Now when you add the word network to the end it is pretty simple and doesn't really need another explanation does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRMRMcKay (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is Neutrality Disputed?
Why is the neutrality of this article disputed? Bosniak (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it. --68.9.117.147 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

--

It would seem that the mention of specific video game platforms goes againts the broad nature of the article.. Thoughts? Brian Gunderson (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cosmological constant
Isn't “dark energy” an ad-hoc hypotheses itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.110.185.135 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

New articles/disambiguation
I think that I agree with the above comment (at the very top) regarding creating articles for the different types of ad-hoc (like wifi connectivity, for example). Or maybe turn this into a disambiguation page. As it stands now, the article only talks about a few different types of definitions, which could be summarized in more readable and simpler terms in a disambiguation page, which is my alternative suggestion. What think ye, folks? Do either of these suggestions have any beneficial value? Regards, 98.202.38.225 (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree (he said, leaving others to do the work!): This article is "about the Latin phrase," not an explication of every manner of its use. A short explanation of the general meaning, with one or two usage examples (such as add hoc committee and ad hoc hypothesis -- with only phrase-length glosses) are all that is needed. The other material should be elsewhere e.g. ad hoc query in some article on database systems.  The DAB page already points to several such articles.  Once that's done, it's likely that what's left belongs in Wiktionary, not W-pedia, unless the phrase has an interesting role in rise and fall of Julius Caesar or something like that. EEng (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree this belongs in Wiktionary, and otherwise, ad hoc querying needs to be cleaned up or removed. What is this sentence saying? "Many application software systems have an underl in-depth knowledge of SQL, or database schema that a programmer would have." I can't make heads or tails of it. Jogar2 (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Negative connotations--"Suggesting a makeshift solution, inadequate planning, or improvised events."
This uncited alternate meaning may be valid, I don't know. If so it might be a "leakage" from ad lib. In any case, I don't see why the phrases "makeshift solution" and improvised event should be construed as having negative connotation.-Rich Peterson199.33.32.40 (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ad hoc defineds itself ambiguously
The uncited alternate meaning is the one with which I have always been familiar. Upon seeking this page, I was surprised to find it has another more primary meaning. Not so insignificantly, the two meanings are nearly in contradiction with one another. Thus having come here to find a more accurate definition of Ad hoc, what I have found is that the definition is itself, ad hoc in implementation. ;) -Ryan Mercer 17, April 2013

Ad hoc decision-making especially in law or canon law
Does the term "ad hoc" have specific meaning in civil or canon law? Certainly it has a meaning within decision-making. I just heard a bishop talking about addressing an issue "ad hoc" at a later date, presumedly when required to by circumstances, as opposed to making the decision in advance based upon hypotheticals. --Bruce Hall (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A priori?
Why does the article encourage readers to compare "ad hoc" to "a priori"? They don't appear to be opposite or similar in meaning. Am I missing something? The only significant connection I can see is that they are both Latin terms. The term "ad hoc" does not appear in the "a priori" article at all. Was this a mistake or confusion by the author? 66.91.36.8 (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)