User talk:Banno

Old stuff:, , ,   

Greetings from TPF
We've probably had some interactions here before since you're part of WP:Philosophy too, but I'm terrible with names and just now realized you're the same person I also know from the Philosophy Forums. Hi! --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I haven't done much here for years, but the tedium of TPF has driven me here while I do a bit of recuperating. Banno (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Non sense: A hypothesis is falsifiable if some observation might show it to be false.
My first motivation when I started to work on Falsifiability was to remove this non sense. Many intelligent and rigorous 10th grade students that try to understand what this means must be very confused. I was confused myself. It could be that many others will be happy with this, but I cannot explain why. Rigorously, if it is possible to show that a law is false, then it has to be false. So, it is not the definition of Popper's falsifiability. Trying to compensate by adding "in principle" does not work. Mentioning just after that one counterexample is sufficient to disprove a law is a good introduction to falsificationism, but it does not make this non sense go away. Falsifiability, in opposition to falsification, is an abstract concept that is not easy to convey in concrete terms. I believe that this is our main point of disagreement. It can only be understood if you separate the logical side from the methodological side. On the logical side, you have a set of observational statements and the law must contradict some of them. It's very simple, when you separate the logical side. Otherwise, it's just non sense. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your background is science? As in, mine is philosophy with a dab of science (undergrad). It's just that you missed the modality in "Rigorously, if it is possible to show that a law is false, then it has to be false". Not a big issue, since I'd replaced it with the might sentence. But "A hypothesis is falsifiable if some observation might show it to be false" is exactly right, not nonsense.
 * Let me do a few edits. Banno (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In the future please keep comments associated with the article; as in, on the article's talk page. That way we can get other folk to chime in. This page is for stuff that only concerns me. Banno (talk)
 * I wanted to address this point personally to you. The fact that it may interest others does not change what was my intention. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Demarcation
Overall the changes of the last few weeks have been positive. The Demarcation section is an exception. The first two paragraphs ramble on about verificationism as a theory of meaning, which is all but irrelevant here;Third paragraph is ambiguous; and no where does it tell me what Demarcation actualy is. Banno (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Rfc on Falsifiability
Your comments will be appreciated at Talk:Falsifiability. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)