Talk:Tipping point

[Untitled]
I've moved the material on Gladwell's book to its own page, with some expansion and editing. I deleted the paragraph below, as it's very unencyclopaedic and doesn't help me understand what connection there is, if any, between the concepts.

''For comparison, consider some of the recent work of the Santa Fe Institute and others on the emergence of order and complexity in dense chaotic systems. A tipping point is rather like a social "phase transition". You're familiar with the phase transition of water, to become ice or steam. A tipping point is the same sort of thing... a point when suddenly everything changes and the properties become nonlinear. Well these phase transitions and tipping points are everywhere, and often accompany the "sudden" emergence of ordered systems from random systems. The crystalization of minerals, the formation of astronomical systems, the extinction of species, and perhaps even the first appearance of "life" are all such examples. The concept is quite fascinating and, it would seem, important to understanding the nature of the complexity we see in the fascinating world around us. If this sounds interesting, you might check out Stuart Kauffman's At Home in the Universe.'' Markalexander100 19:45, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re-merge discussion
climatology is the study of the atmosphere and sociology is the study oh human interaction. to merge these two articles would not make sense as they are on completely unrelated topicsThechemist21 (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Although climatology and sociology are different topics, the term "tipping point" is used the same way. It is a general term used to refer to an inflection point in a complex system such as the Earth's climate or a particular social structure. Just because the original article is currently weighted heavily toward the sociological usage does not automatically mean that other common uses get their own article, especially when the concept is the essentially the same. If that were the case, we would have separate tipping point articles for all those other uses mentioned, from economics to epidemiology to politics to who knows what else. If the main article needs to be generalized and balanced, that can be worked on, but I don't think this is an good solution. Information on a tipping point for global warming would be best covered through an addition to mitigation of global warming or a related article, and linking back to a general "tipping point" article for information on the term. Given the relevance of the sociological usage to the term's entry into the common vocabulary, it would be appropriate to retain some mention, but specifics would probably best be redirected to another article. Dancter (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this. It sounds like they are both just bifurcations, but merging them will inhibit the articles. I am sure much can be said about each topic, so merging them is not a good idea. Your point is understandable, but it really depends on how important each concept is on its own. There are many examples of bifurcations in economics that do not deserve articles on their own. If they existed I would agree with you to merge them or eliminate them altogether. Yet, it seems to me that "tipping point" as it relates to climate, at least in the popular media, gets a lot of airtime...   I am not a sociologist so I do not know if the same is true for the sociological concept, but it looks like an article that may grow and merging it might just make things worst by taking away flow, coherence, and making it more like a list. Brusegadi (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Sociology and climatology both use the term as a metaphor for something similar to the everyday experience of a solid object falling over but they are describing different phenomona each of which deserve their own article. The various other uses, some of which are not notable enough for their own article should be described on the disambiguation page, Tipping point (disambiguation). Lumos3 (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except it's the same metaphor, and whereas the original article (which you moved to tipping point (sociology)) did feature some attempts to describe a general definition of the term, the climatology-related article makes no reference to the metaphor which it adopts. As I described in my previous comment, "tipping point" has particular meaning that is globally applied to the many areas for which it is used. Even a simple dictionary lookup results in "tipping point: the culmination of a build-up of small changes that effects a big change". With the exception of angle of repose, that figurative definition informs the usage in all pages with name as listed on the disambiguation page, and per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, an article about that meaning should be featured under the main title, rather than a disambiguation page.


 * A tipping point is not a different concept in climatology than it is in sociology. The same phrase and concept is being used to describe different theories—theories that employ but do not define the concept of a tipping point. I already mentioned my concern that the sociological usage may be featured too prominently in the lead of the original article. That can be fixed. There isn't actually that much there, and the problem is more of placement than anything. The term has been used by Grodzins, Wolf, and Schelling to describe a characteristic of white flight and segregation, by Granovetter to describe models of collective behavior, and by Gladwell in his book to describe his own epidemiological take on social trends. None of those things define a tipping point, but along with climatology and the other uses, all have to do with a systems perspective. Explain the term's applicability in the tipping point article, but leave the details of the phenomena it is used for to the relevant articles.


 * The term "tipping point" does not in and of itself carry the specific meaning described in your article, such that the word can be merely mentioned to an environmental scientist and immediately be understood in the context of global warming. In fact, a while back I was contesting an article by another editor using "tipping point" in nearly the exact opposite sense, in which the term referred to the point at which a confluence of human civic action succeeds in reversing environmental decline. In terms of specialization of meaning, there is little difference between "tipping point" and, say, "critical mass". If the climatologists decided to use the latter term to analogize things, I doubt that the same arguments would be made for "equal status".


 * Just because climatologists are using a currently fashionable buzzword (in the commonly understood sense, no less) to describe a pre-existing concept does not mean that usage of the term merits a separate article all for itself. Most of what you described in that article was already covered in the section of greenhouse effect to which you inexplicably added your tipping point paragraph at the top. Although also frequently used by climatologists, the "runaway effect" in complex systems has no climatology-specific meaning either, which is why "runaway greenhouse effect" is often used to clarify when the things aren't evident from the context. Complex systems have a lot to do with climatology, which is why you see so many of the same terms. "Tipping point" has also been used quite a few times in reference to the current presidential primary race for the US Democratic Party. Should we create a tipping point article for that?


 * I accept there the original article confused different conceptions of the term. In the case of "angle of repose", "tipping point" actually is meant in a different sense. The angle of repose for a pile of granular material represents a literal tipping point beyond which the pile becomes unstable, and liable to "tip", or collapse. It does not use the same metaphorical conception of "a solid object falling over", although that is literally the case. The terms are not interchangable, though, which is where I disagree with Lowellian. Except for those whose knowledge was based on the Wikipedia article, noone would use "angle of repose" to refer to a tipping point, especially in the other contexts. The word "repose" refers to stability, whereas "tipping point" refers to the threshold of instability. You state, that the original article "tries to combine many uses on to one page", yet it is still very much a short stub, with much need of improvement. The positive feedback article, on the other hand, has much more content, covers a variety of different usages in more depth, and does a better job explicating the unifying idea, without having two rough stubs trying to do what a singular article could do better. Dancter (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Like any subject where there is a range of meaning there should be a disambiguation page that gives an overview of all the meanings and those that are too complex to explain in a couple of sentences in the disambiguation page should be expanded in their own articles. I would argue that "tipping point" has at least 2 usages which require an expanded article, those for the sociological and climate change. Particularly the usage in the climate change debate has now reached a level where it is common to speak of "The tipping point" , implying that it is an event of unique significance being spoken about. To try and do justice to each of the meanings in a single page I believe would make it over complex and confusing to the reader. Lumos3 (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no harm in keeping this discussion open longer. I still disagree. I already expressed my opinion on the matter. I see no difference in meaning for the phrase itself. At this point, I see a somewhat vague and nebulous application of a popularized concept used to dress up an old idea, and would argue that any specialization of the phrase's meaning in the context of climate change is at the point of neologism. Since your main concern seems to be for your particular article, and mine being the other, unless any objections are specifically raised in the next day, I will proceed to revise the page at tipping point (sociology) to better reflect the more generalized coverage of tipping point for which I am advocating. Dancter (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Not only are the two aras very different, in climatology it doesn't really mean what you think it means William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, then. I guess I have my objection. I won't go ahead with the changes to the tipping point (sociology) article and will hence take my leave. Feel free to remove the banners. I admit I am not an expert on global warming. I was basing my understanding of the climatology meaning on what Lumos3 wrote. I would've been much happier if someone could bring me around on this, explaining it so I could at least understand and accept any errors in my position, but I don't want to be any more of a nuisance when my concerns have obviously been rejected. I apologize for any inconvenience. Dancter (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is mathematics science or a tool?
See Mathmatics as a starting point. 99.181.131.214 (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If mathmatics is "science" then economics surely too.  99.181.130.94 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely not. In any case, we could eliminate economics by using "quantitative sciences", except that that would eliminate planetary boundaries as well, which seems counterproductive.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The important thing is to gather those which fit under the definition at the top under that definition. The economics definition doesn't fit.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is that important to you? 99.181.138.52 (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the start of gathering together the article tipping point (science), which explains why many of these "tipping point" articles really have something in common besides the name. Since I now have a working definition with reference, I can start putting together a true article with sections pointing to the other tipping point articles.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need to argue this. The heading is "science" and everything there fits that closely enough. I've removed the sublists, and just left it flat, in the hope that might be acceptable. I also don't like the term tipping point, which is actually a very vague idea (at least as applied to climate, which is why Lenton et al had to make up their "tipping elements") William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a clarity improvement. Thank you Special:Contributions/William M. Connolley.  99.109.127.44 (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Order?
Why is the order of the items being altered? Is there a clear definitive wp rule? 99.109.124.95 (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. Why are you altering the order?  There is a guideline that they should generally be in alphabetical order unless there are different types of items, or there is a clear difference in frequency of use.  Both of these occur in this disambiguation page.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't be the one to ask, Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. 99.181.143.128 (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)