Talk:David Deutsch

Criterion for explanation
The criterion (more correctly: proposal) is hardly new, it was the topic of a (posthumously published) essay by Popper called The Search For Invariants, where he traced its origins to parminedes.

Furthemore, Hard to Vary is a variation on the methodological proposal to not make ad hoc adjustments to theories in the face of counter-instances. To say it is a property of explanations is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.92.67.44 (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

homepage 404
david's site on qubit.org is 404, not sure if this is temporary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.76.84 (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
I have moved the previous discussion to Fabric of Reality in line with user:stevertigo's (undiscussed)restructuring.1Z 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Like Ray Kurzweil, David Deutsch is another thinker who is valuable even when wrong. I have a family connection to a rival interpretation of quantum mechanics and I disagee with his particular brand of unschooling (& probably a lot of his politics), but the Deutsch entry really needs to be expanded and elaborated. (Though not by me.) KC Pleasantville 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the article's importance. As the founder of quantum computing, I think this is justified.

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

George Deutsch
I was reading a back issue of New Scientist this morning, and saw a claim that David Deutsch was manipulating NASA press releases for George Bush. First I was shocked, then I realized that this must be another David Deutsch, so I came here. It took a bit of googling before I realized that New Scientist had made a little mistake, and arrived at George Deutsch. I have seldom seen two more contrasting characters ;-) --Slashme (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * These remarks involve the obvious danger of a libel action.
 * No, they don't.--FeralOink (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 12:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Snori (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on David Deutsch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209230404/http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk:80/al/prizes.htm to http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/al/prizes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Díez et al. 2013
About a month ago added to the "Invariants" section a mention of a 2013 paper by José Díez, Kareem Khalifa and Bert Leuridan that argued that "there is no good reason to believe that substantive and domain-invariant constraints on explanatory information exist". I removed this paper since the paper does not seem to be addressing the same issue as the section. The issue in Díez et al. 2013 is "that there can be no general, domain-invariant theory of explanation, i.e. no theory that covers explanation in the different sciences in mathematics  in ethics, etc." (p. 380). The issue in the "Invariants" section of this article is different: it is that invariance is a criterion for a (domain-specific) scientific explanation. There is no claim in the section that the criterion is domain-general, i.e. that all explanations require invariance, even in the humanities. So Díez et al. 2013 would be off-topic here. Biogeographist (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Emergentist....
Why weakly or (weakly)?

What is the orginal source? Kartasto (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Too many cites to subject
I'm tagging the article as needing better sourcing because over half the references are to his own works. FeralOink (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)