User:General concensus2012

General Philosophy of this user
If the World of "homo sapiens" depended solely on what the general consensus(concensus) of Science was, we could all end up being some kind of biased inferior humans of some sort, with obtuse minds! Not always the main stream of humans, Governments, and Academia, can be relied on! Why would we all be so naive! How long would new information and work be considered as material for history and wikipedia make reference to? I would suppose as to the importance of the source it came from! Well so they say!

How long can something be of common knowledge? Well I have a book 150 years old, that is available online, and University Libraries of U.S.A. might still have it, but there is no mention of it at wikipedia. And it is vital logic!

I only want to say yes to everything
I only want to say yes to everything, or merely suggest nothing new! Controversial themes are so, because of their origin and biased interests of "obtuse minds"!

All welcome to Wikipedia
Wikipedia is the "only" available main source of information online of its kind, and generally it is "un-biased"!96.48.152.145 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

My user talk contributions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/General_concensus2012 (--General concensus2012 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC))

What is first? Science or Logic?
Merriam-Webster Dictionary Main Entry: logic 1 : a science that deals with the rules and tests of sound thinking and proof by reasoning;

2 : sound reasoning 3 : the arrangement of circuit elements for arithmetical computation in a computer

http://dictionary.reference.com/ 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. 2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic. 3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. 4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move. 5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

What is first or of higher level as to which is needed first? Is it the problem of the Hen and the Egg? Can Science be without logic? Yes it can, though it should not happen! Can logic be without Science? No and Yes! Logic and true "sound" reasoning, is Science! But good reasoning logic can be by itself, and not be Academic recognized Science! Though generally good sound reasoning logic, does proceed from much Science, theoretical and practical learning!

So half truths and half logic, or not complete logic, can or have been made Science in a few cases! But this does not happen to true complete(pure) logic!

Hence I would establish LOGIC and "complete/pure logic", thought, ideas, imagination, to be first, as the "software" and "hardware" of a computer! That then can be established in firm accepted Academia Science, with "strict" Rules and Laws developed(particular specific sciences) and that can be experimented and proven!

Much of Logic and "metaphysics", does not have to be proven as Science might apparently require! The power of Inference and Deduction enter into the game of sound reasoning or illogical reasoning!

If this is helpfull, please feel free to use it! Thanks! (--General concensus2012 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC))

I differ in your WORD meanings
"Testability, a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves two components: (1) the logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible, and (2) the practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist. In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience. Upon this property of its constituent hypotheses rests the ability to decide whether a theory can be supported or falsified by the data of actual experience. If hypotheses are tested, initial results may also be label(l)ed inconclusive." General concensus2012 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Contrary or specifically, falsifiability [], has the root word from "falsifiable" and "false". Meaning that it can be made or proven to be false. And has a general meaning in that, it can be a false/falsifiable belief, or falsifiable by instrumentation. This means it can be studied by either the Scientific Methods or by logic analysis.

Testability is the specific definition from root words of a "test" and "testable". And of what can be testable or not. Something can be or cannot be testable solely by instrumentation and scientific observation by the senses. Testability does not denote persee anything to do with it being false, falsifiable or falsifiability, by the mere word root definition. A test is a test and specific. A test does not mean in its word roots that it can be falsifiable.

What can be falsifiable is hence, a test or a logic statement or belief. And thus has these two components. It is not Testability that has these two components.

It is for wikipedia to decide over this. General concensus2012 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

My Book is now an Author in Facebook - Is my Book still to be considered as not History ?
Please simply consider to be published as article after "SO MANY YEARS of first publishing", would be more logical for what is considered as a TAG as "Original Work"! THANKS!

My facebook Authors page is: https://www.facebook.com/BookOfPureLogic ! First published Canada 2008; USA 2009. So plus 10 years would make it 2018 and 2019, before WIKIPEDIA could consider the article about my Book! IS THIS SENSIBLE? THANKS AGAIN! (General concensus2012 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC))
 * Information.svg Please do not write or add to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. But the Book is not about myself. Though I am the author. I was trying to awake an interest for an Article writer about it. Thanks. General concensus2012 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget my User talks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:General_concensus2012