Talk:Michael Mehaffy

[Untitled]
So, what's the problem? If there are any inaccuracies, anyone familiar with the work of Christopher Alexander and his students, who include Michael Mehaffy, can easily correct them. Mehaffy's work is as much about Alexander as it is about Mehaffy. Nikos.salingaros (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe I have complied with the COI policy. I have no financial or family ties to the subject, and am not in any organization with the subject — except that we co-authored one book and several articles together. Michael Mehaffy is prominent in that part of the field and so am I, therefore I am well positioned to write about him. Nikos.salingaros (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know either the subject or principal editor of this article, but agree it seems well written and neutral in tone.

However the following sentence is incomprehensible (at least to me), and ought to be re-written in laymen's English: He argues that abstractions should be treated as structures like any other, but that they are distinctive only in the symmetric relationships that humans exploit to gain relevant information about parts of the world that are of interest—what he terms a "symmetric structuralism". Buckyboot (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)