Talk:Russell's teapot

Utah Teapot?

As a graduate of the U, I'm not in the habit of removing references to the teapot that the university is known for over much else, but I seriously doubt anyone would confuse Russell's teapot and the Utah teapot. I don't think it's a necessary link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pow2clk (talk • contribs)

I agree. Hatnotes are for people who might have wound up in one place when what they're looking for is somewhere else. There's no reason why a search would lead someone looking for the Utah Teapot to Russell's Teapot, Chester teapot, Teapot Dome, or I'm a Little Teapot. Largoplazo (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

These are the redirects for each:

• Russell's teapot: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Russell%27s_teapot&hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1 and
• Utah teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Utah_teapot&hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1

The only one that might be typed while looking for the Utah teapot is "Teapotist" that actually links here. I do not find it likely enough warrant the hatnote. Perhaps we put Utah teapot in the see also section? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the hatnote was more of a distraction than a help. I just removed it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Isn't Russell's teapot basically an example to illustrate the informal logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)? It seems that there should be a mention pointing out this. SpaceEconomist192 10:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Occam's Razor is used incorrectly

Occam's Razor only applies if two theories are indistinguishable in their predictions. For example, if someone says gravity causes plans to orbit and another person says an undectable god causes gravity to cause planets orbit. They both make the same prediction, but the latter adds an unnecessary element.

If the competing theories make different predictions, then Occam's razor doesn't apply. Instead you just determine which prediction is correct. 72.220.142.234 (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The article is paraphrasing Peter Atin use of Occam's razor. See https://archive.org/details/oxfordhandbookof0000clay/page/129/mode/1up?q=occam . Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Analysis

Could an editor please remove the extra "that", in the sentence: "Occam's razor has been interpreted to mean that that the simpler theory with fewer assertions (i.e., a universe with no supernatural beings) should be the starting point in the discussion rather than the more complex theory." 2A02:8388:293E:3400:15C3:4E96:5D1:D982 (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

On removing Gary Gutting

I removed a reference to an opinion piece by philosopher Gary Gutting because our text misrepresented the original, and I didn't see how to make an honest representation fit in context. Contrary to what we wrote, Gutting only argues against what he sees as Richard Dawkins' mishandling of the teapot analogy; contra Dawkins, Gutting argues, the teapot does not support strong atheism, but only agnosticism. I'm enthusiastic about discussing improving and restoring this text, if anyone has suggestions. --causa sui (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's good to remove that. It's just another opinion about what Dawkins wrote and is not WP:DUE here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. (I feel like making a joke about gutting the content from Gutting.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)