Talk:Puddle thinking

Counter arguments
This is either the most idiotic argument I have seen yet on this topic or the funniest one.

Since puddles have no brains they cannot think and therefore lack the human ability to inspect self and discover laws of physics compatible with their existence. However, if puddles had great brains, I think they would surely work out the correct solution, that the rain made them.

I will undo the link that has been added into Anthropic Principle, since it is impossible to counter all such arguments and the Anthropic Principle already has its share of such arguments against it. Besides you are setting up a straw man, since the variant of the anthropic principle you talk about is one which means quite the opposite of the "weak anthropic principle", which is the preferred variant. Highlander (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an analogy, you dolt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.102.178 (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That was not polite. Please discuss the issue, not the person. Paradoctor (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And it is a bad analogy which is fueled by the fact that being a puddle, the puddle is actually considered stupid, which is partially opposed to him somehow being able to think. Thus the puddle argument actually is an ad hominem attack("You are as stupid as a puddle").Highlander (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you have WP:RS backing up that claim, by all means add it. Paradoctor (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Highlander, your opinion of whether it is a good analogy or not is wholly irrelevant. Stick to using opinions in reliable sources, please. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page Mr. Fences and windows, and I think I am allowed to add my own opinion here, even if you consider it irrelevant. If you think otherwise, how about sourcing everything you say on talk pages first?!? Also please consider that not for everything imaginable there will be a "reliable source". For example, there is no reliable source stating that "Puddle thinking" should be merged with "Anthropic Principle". If you really think it should be merged, you can go ahead and do that, but you are opening a can of worms with that, since if you add a criticism, it would be fair if you added the counter arguments to it, but then you will run into problems because there are no sourced counter arguments to it. Yet, if you omit the counter arguments, the page "Anthropic Principle" will contain another reason to have an NPOV tag attached to it.Highlander (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "my own opinion here": Actually this is not true in general. Only opinions on how to improve the article belong here, everything else is at best tolerated.
 * "omit the counter arguments": You can't omit what is not there. If a relevant, verifiable criticism has never met counterarguments, not representing it would violate NPOV.
 * BTW, "rain made them": You might want to reconsider that one. ;) There are at least five alternatives.
 * "go ahead": May I read your statement as a withdrawal of your "oppose" to the merge? Paradoctor (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion is still "oppose a merge" for all the reasons outlined in the above. I have also suggested that it should be merged with the Final anthropic principle page, where it is at least relevant. But it is not like there is an overwhelming majority against a merge with Anthropic principle, and I don't have a veto in these matters. If puddle thinking is added to Anthropic principle, then I believe you would have to explain that "puddle thinking" is not relevant to the Anthropic principle, but points out simply that the AP does not make a statement concerning the future. The problem with adding this is that it would be unsourced.Highlander (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your concerns deserve addressing like everybody else's, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY
 * "reasons" ..."above": Not valid according to policy: No sources.
 * "not relevant to the Anthropic principle": Which WP:RS says so?
 * "adding this" ... "unsourced": ?!? How so? This article list three sources. Am I wrong? Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Famous persons make mistakes too, even if you have a source. With "unsourced" I was referring to the explanation that I think would be necessary, in particular the basic mistake is attacking a version of the anthropic principle which is not central to Anthropic principle. And yes that is an unsourced statement by me, and if you would use your brains and read Anthropic principle instead of relying on a source, you would realize that too. Otherwise nothing can't stop your logic that if you have a source that says it belongs to Anthropic principle then it must be added.Highlander (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "mistakes too": Believe me, I know that. But this is Wikipedia: "verifiability not truth". "Using your brains" is the problem: Most people, and I'm including myself here, don't have the brains required to evaluate the validity of a scientific argument. If even the experts, with years of training in the scientific method, occasionally get it wrong, what chance has Jo Reader? OTOH, checking whether a source really said what is claimed is within grasp of most readers. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is really not the place for original research. Paradoctor (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you would invest your time adding something which you know is wrong only because you have a source saying it? Weird. But at least we have established that we both are well-meaning.Highlander (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that it need establishing. :) Re "wrong": as long as there are no sources saying so, any argument has to be considered WP:OR. As for "weird": Hell yeah! ;)
 * So, have we established now that our views on truth are not a valid objection on Wikipedia? Paradoctor (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will rest my arguments against your superior wikipedia-fu. I'll retract my objection, but I still have hope to have convinced you just a little.Highlander (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "superior wikipedia-fu" I like it. ^_^ Thank your for the kudos. :) Paradoctor (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Convergent evolution
I recall a story from the German version of IASFM, in which a puddle (pond?) becomes sentient as a consequence of illegal waste disposal. IIRC, the protagonist comes into telepathic contact with the puddle, but when he returns, the puddle has been killed by toxic waste. The issue was published probably during the 80s, and the author was probably German, the German version featured one story by local talent per issue. Paradoctor (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Merging proposal
I think this certainly needs to be merged into another article. I don't think that it is important or noteworthy enough to be the sole contents of an article. I would suggest merging it into "Anthropic Theory," since that is what it is clearly a parody of.

Setting issues of philosophical seriousness aside, the main reason I think this article should be merged is because almost nobody is going to look up "Puddle Theory" in an encyclopedia. Placing the text in an article on "Anthropic Theory," however, will ensure that people who may have an interest--for whatever reason--in this theory will find it. TheStripèdOne (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If no opposition comes up, this article will be merged to Fine-tuned universe. This has been suggested at anthropic principle and has so far met with approval at fine-tuned universe. Paradoctor (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Performed merge, for more information see Talk:Fine-tuned Universe Paradoctor (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

✅

The content is no longer at fine-tuned universe. I'm not sure what should be done. Options include:
 * Re-instating the content at fine-tuned universe after discussing it on that talk page.
 * Including the content in a more appropriate article.
 * Re-instating the content here.
 * Deleting this page if puddle universes are not notable enough for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe vom Titan (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)