User talk:BigK HeX/oz

Austrian School article
I mistakenly delved into a discussion of OR on another noticeboard. I think a good bit of that discussion is actually more appropriate here. The following is mostly a copy-paste from that thread (with a few minor modifications to my final conclusion). (If this fork is inappropriate, please close the section or let me know.)

The short version of the issue is that I've informed the editor in question that it's largely irrelevant whether he thinks that his source's statement can be used in part to derive his conclusion. It is clear that his source does NOT explicitly make the assertion (as well as it being pretty questionable whether the point is made implicitly). That editor eventually began an NPOV thread.

[copy-paste BEGINS]

_____

Over at “Austrian School”, one or more editors has tried to have the article declared (underscore mine) citing a webpage as support. In 1959, it was demonstrated (in a peer-reviewed article) that some total-orderings do not correspond to any assignment of quantities (unique or otherwise), and in 1977 "The Austrian theory of the marginal use and of ordinal marginal utility", a peer-reviewed article by J Huston McCulloch in Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie v37, used this result to demonstrate that the orthodox conjecture that a quantification could be fit to any economically rational ordering were false. The passage in question treated a false conjecture as a theorem, on the strength of a claim from a source that is not peer-reviewed.

When I attempted to remove this bald, false claim, BigK HeX restored it less baldly as with the summary assertion though in fact McCulloch's article had been cited on this matter on the talk page. Caplan's claim as such was already in a “Criticism” section of the article (where McCulloch's article is also noted), so reïteration of the claim is redundant; and the source here is poor. None-the-less, BigK HeX asserts again on my talk page that I haven't provided an appropriate source, and preëmptively threatens to use WP:3RR. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 18:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And now BigK HeX has removed any reference to the peer-reviewed article by McCulloch. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the reference to McCulloch because SlamDiego insists on using it to promote a conclusion that is very clearly NOT evident in the source. I basically posted the following summary on the article's talk page. That mainly, I believe there is a violation of WP:SYN.  SlamDiego made this edit:
 * "McCulloch, however, has formally shown that there are economically rational preferences to which none of [ mainstream microeconomic theorists' ] weak quantifications can be fit."
 * and when pressed about it failing verification, he apparently describes how he based his statement on text from page 274 of his source which discusses "Table 4." The only relevant conclusion about a "Table 4" there is the following:
 * "the unrelated ordering of Table 4 cannot be essentially cardinal."
 * ....that's it, as conclusions on "Table 4" go. The passage in the editor's source makes no mention of mainstream theories, much less describing them as "weakly quantified," and we have certainly NOT been presented with evidence of McCulloch equating all things "essentially cardinal" with things that the editor refers to as "weakly quantified."  And, no matter what phrase SlamDiego  chooses to use (whether "weakly quantified" or something else), that he still has NOT been able to quote where his source attempts to make the same conclusion that he has synthesized.
 * Given SlamDiego's contested edit, it seems that he is using the source as if it read, "the unrelated ordering of Table 4 cannot be realized by the weak quantifications of the mainstream microeconomic theorists described by Bryan Caplan" He has substituted the source's concept ("essentially cardinal") with his own concept (of what can be "realized by the 'weak quantifications' of mainstream microeconomic theorists").
 * Even further, it is clear that the author, McCulloch, wrote that passage with the express aim of building his conclusions about a non-mainstream theory there [the Austrian theory of utility], which makes SlamDiego's use of that passage as a reference for assertions about mainstream theory even less defensible, as it is completely disregarding the context of the source. BigK HeX (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It needs to be noted (as it was on the talk page) that McCulloch had elsewhere defined “essentially cardinal” orderings as those to which quantifications can be fitted. (McCulloch had defined “unrelated” orderings as those in which goods an services do not act as complements nor as substitutes.) Thus, in providing an ordering that was economically rational what could not be “essentially cardinal”, he had provided one to which no quantification could be fitted. Caplan (rightly or wrongly) is cited as having allegedly said “mainstream theorists since then have shown that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so also hold for ordinal preferences”, in rebuttal to Austrian School claims that utility could not be quantified.
 * BigK HeX is claiming that, because McCulloch was speaking of the theory that Caplan was supposedly rebutting, but not in reply to that rebuttal nor (supposedly) in explicit response to other mainstream claims, it is synthesis to cite McCulloch in response to Caplan. (BigK HeX is not even accurate in pretending that McCulloch concerned himself only with the Austrian School theory, as McCulloch specifically noted that the von Neumann Morgenstern formulation could not be reconciled with “intrinsically ordinal” preferences, and this point has been made to BigK HeX repeatedly.)
 * McCulloch's demonstration wasn't based upon a prior exclusion of mainstream theories. The fact that McCulloch's principal concern was the Austrian School theory (the theory that Caplan was supposedly refuting), rather than the theory that Caplan supports, doesn't make it “original synthesis” to cite McCulloch.
 * The removal of the reference to McCulloch is an attempt to protect a PoV by pettifogging with WP:SYNTH. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 12:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Even ignoring your blatant misuse of the source to draw a conclusion not evident in the reference, your edit is still problematic since it's written as if it were a refutation of Caplan's assertions when IT DOES NOTHING TO REFUTE THEM.  The assertions that you attempt to refute are not present in the article --- certainly, I don't see Caplan making arguments similar to the ones you endeavor to "refute."  So, on top of the problem of you not having a source that even makes the point you're trying to create, your usage as a refutation is even worse because there's not actually any content in the article for it to refute (except, perhaps, a strawman). BigK HeX (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ignoring your begging of the question, Caplan is discussing exactly Austrian School ordinalism, and McCulloch's article is indeed principally about that ordinalism. Caplan is alleged in the article to claim that the Austrian School claims about their ordinalism are refuted; McCulloch had already shown a class of preferences that vindicates those claims.  In attempting to stand the relationship of McCulloch's claim to the Caplan claim on its head, you are turning the relationship of the Caplan claim to the article on its head.  Such inversions are wikilawyering to push a PoV. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T  04:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to SlamDiego

 * At least we're getting to the heart of the matter now. Aside from the suspected synthesis of assertions that are not implied by your source, it seems to be getting pretty clear that your edit attacks a strawman --- but, I suppose it's possible that I've overlooked something, though we'll see... this could be handled most simply if you're willing to provide a direct answer (as opposed to any circuitous non-answer) to the following.
 * Your quote follows, but I'll begin with an attempt to make clear your contention. It seems these three points are implied from the quote that follows:
 * A) You believe that there is at least one Austrian school theory about a certain concept (economic utility, in this case), and
 * B) you believe that Austrian thinkers have made assertions about their school's theory, and
 * C) you believe that Bryan Caplan is described within the Wiki article as having refuted the assertions of those Austrian thinkers about their economic theory [i.e., Austrian ordinal utility].
 * Specifically, your quote is that, "Caplan is alleged in the article to claim that the Austrian School claims about their ordinalism are refuted"
 * Please quote precisely from the Wiki article where this occurs. I'm quite interested in seeing where the article links: "Caplan" and "refutes" and "Austrian School ordinalism."  I have little doubt that I'll get another long-winded distraction, instead of the quote from the Wiki article that I've requested, but it's worth a shot. BigK HeX (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My edits were to two passages:
 * The same criticism (attributed to Caqplan) has been placed both in the “Interwar Period” section and the “Criticism” section; you insist that this criticism should appear twice, and you've cited WP:UNDUE to defend the claim that this criticism from an unreviewed webpage should apper twice.
 * After you escalated to removing the McCulloch reference (from a peer-reviewed journal), I have sought to restore it.
 * Now, as to this question about which you claim to be “interested”, you're applying one standard to the Caplan passage and a verfy contrary standard to the McCulloch passage. You cannot “quote precisely” where the McCulloch passage says that Caplan is refuted any more than someone else could “quote precisely” where the the Wiki article says that Caplan refutes Austrian School ordinalism.
 * The claims are taken as refutations, without such precise quotation in either case, because the possibilities are exhausted be claiming quantifiability or its contradiction.  Rothbard claims that utility is strictly unquantifiable; Caplan claims that it can be quantified if done with care not to read too much into the quantification; McCulloch showed that quantification can literally be mathematically impossible.  The reader may see what is logically implied, or may not.
 * When it comes to WP:UNDUE, when it comes to distracting from the issue that I originally raised here, and when it comes to “quot [ ing ] precisely” you are wikilawyering. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]
 * Welp ... that was a predictable response.
 * Oh well. Given your rather direct assertion that "Caplan is alleged in the article to claim that the Austrian School claims about their ordinalism are refuted,"  we mere mortals might just think that THERE WAS AN ALLEGATION PRESENT IN THE ARTICLE.  I requested that you produce a quotation of this allegation, and, obviously, I'm unsurprised that the request has been left unfulfilled.

Final Remarks by BigK HeX

 * In any case, I submit the following observations in concluding my remarks here.
 * A) SlamDiego's claim of "repetition" (for mentioning the mainstream understanding of a certain economic concept in two different sentences) seems weak, and I have, indeed, referred him to NPOV and made a reference to WP:STRUCTURE as well, which seems to be what he refers to as "wikilawyering." In any case, the specifics are this: the first instance of the "repetitious" sentence is used to help bring a balancing perspective to a minority viewpoint, and the second mention occurs as one example of many in the "criticism" section of the article.
 * B) SlamDiego's complaint about an "unreviewed webpage" are easily corrected (and thus not really useful for him here), since the claims of the webpage were also published by peer-reviewed journals of a reliability equivalent to the sources used throughout that wikipedia article. I'll probably adjust the citations later [the article is locked at the moment].
 * C) SlamDiego's contentious edit made assertions that I have been unable to verify in the provided ref. Indeed, it seems that the Wiki talk page is really the only place you can find this conclusion being constructed, as opposed to an WP:RS of some sort ... even on the talk page, his argument seemed full of holes, which is what initially aroused my suspicions of original research.
 * D) When challenged for clarification, it became pretty clear to me that he is definitely drawing a conclusion not evident in the source, as explained above. His rebuttal basically has centered around explaining how one should ultimately be able to reach his conclusion, but that smells to me a lot like WP:SYN; there is an opinion other than SlamDiego and myself --- that editor on the talk page seems to agree with my conclusions; I do not think anyone has weighed in and agreed with SlamDiego's understanding. As an aside, it's not really relevant, but I've investigated SlamDiego's claim and would assert that his contention is flawed; I'd further suggest that this flaw is a good reason why he has been unable to present from his source any assertions that similar to his full contention.
 * E) A further problem is that SlamDiego's edit is written as a refutation. Another editor and I (on the talk page) have stated that the assertions which are supposedly refuted are not even present in the article (i.e., strawman).
 * F) Obviously, I tried to seek clarification [immediately above] that SlamDiego has not engaged in the creation of a strawman. It is pretty apparent that my request for clarification on this page went unfulfilled.  I still contend that the wording&placement of his edit as a refutation is fallacious (on top of it's WP:OR problems).
 * G) Of four editors who have weighed in about possible WP:OR issues at the talk page section, I believe all of the editors except SlamDiego have concluded that his source is not used appropriately, for various reasons.
 * I would like to make clear that I do think SlamDiego's source has information that could be helpful for the article and that SlamDiego likely possesses some potentially helpful expertise, but, in this case, it is my sad opinion that the (mis)usage of this source is a disservice to the article. BigK HeX (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)