User talk:Blue Mist 1/Archive 1

Self serving reference
Hi, concerning this edit and the edit summary, apparently adding this link is this user's sole activity here. See. Do you think this needs attention? - DVdm (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * He also added himself at Absolute time and space. It's beyond me why academics lower themselves to this level.
 * I followed his reference, found a $365.- encyclopedia without online access. He is a remarkably well published author in other, unrelated fields. I wish he would register and become a useful contributor in his areas of expertise.
 * Can anything be done about an anonymous user from a uni site? BlueMist (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverting edits and warnings on talk page, but only if the references don't back the content to which they are attached. If it is indeed an encyclopedia, then this is a tertiary source, whereas wikipedia requires secondary sources. So the edits couls in principle be reverted as wp:unsourced and standard user talk warning templates like could be used, but again, only if the references don't back the content. - DVdm (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous Peoples, Tertiary Source Removal
Hi Maunus, I removed the encyclopedia references from Indigenous Peoples because
 * 1) they were placed there by the authors or associates of the authors as part of a campaign to advertise their articles at the expense of vandalizing Wikipedia. They made similar additions to 28 different articles, some unrelated to their expertise.
 * 2) tertiary sources are not acceptable as Wikipedia sources, secondary sources are required.

Since you were not aware of the history of the contributors, I can understand your objections. It would be helpful if you undid your own edit. Thanks, BlueMist (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(mirror)
 * You are wrong that tertiary sources are not accepted. Secondary sources are preferred but not required. This can be seen in the policy WP:TERTIARY. Spam on the other hand is a valid reason for removal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Unfortunately, wiki policy leaves wiggle room for "more reliable" tertiary sources. It should not, although my shoulds don't matter to wiki. Unlike many secondary sources, tertiary sources are not independently peer reviewed, thus there is no way to know which ones are more or less reliable.
 * In this instance, the sources are pushed by two unregistered IP's, both from the Durham area, and of the 28 pages, at least 2 are about Durham U. The Encyclopedia is sold by Amazon for $328.23, plus or minus, and there are no reviews and there is no online access. I would not think that reliable.
 * Well, in any case, I really don't think those folk should be adding not one, but three references to this page. BlueMist (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia allows many sources that are not peer reviewed, and so it should. Topical encyclopedias and other tertiary sources published by academic presses are most certainly peerreviewed and their entries are written by established experts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Philosophy aside, you seem hell bent on retaining these useless, IP spammed references. Have you read the three articles? As far as I can tell, you'd have to buy their $328- encyclopedia, even then you would have no way of peer reviewing the text and its possible social or political biases. BlueMist (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty ridiculous to claim that I seem hell bent when I have already conceded that these inclusions are spam. I maybe hell bent that you shouldnt misrepresent policy when you revert good faith inclusions. We accept tertiary sources and we always have. You can get access to their encyclopedia through a library if you want to review it. It is also not a requirement for sources that they be available for purchase at a particularly economic prize.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, regarding this edit: goodfaith addition of content or sources is not vandalism, and should not be referred to as such, even when someone considers it spam. This is clearly a goodfaith addition.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

articles written by topic experts?
 * I now have the three volumes of the encyclopeda in front of me and they are not fake. It is in fact a high quality topical encyclopedia with articles written by topic experts. This is the kind of tertiary source that is very useful as a source on wikipedia. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All the articles were written by the same spammer. BlueMist (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they were not. They are written by professors at different universities.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

articles written by topic experts?
 * All the *28* articles I've seen here on Wikipedia were written by Mughal, Muhammad Aurang Zeb. Are you that author? BlueMist
 * Mughal has written two articles in the encyclopedia - the one on Brazil and the one on Spain. The IP inserted those two articles, in support of facts that are in fact found in the articles. So even if you have a suspicion the Ip that inserted them were the author that does not mean that they should be removed - because they are reliable source that support facts in articles. The correct thing to do would have been to notify the IP of our COI policies, and then leave the citations in untill such a time that you could supply a better source for the same information. Removing valid sourcing just because of a COI suspicion is not helpful for the encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

articles written by topic experts?
 * Read this again, please:
 * All the 28 (that's TWENTY EIGHT) articles I've seen here on Wikipedia were written by Mughal, Muhammad Aurang Zeb.
 * There are probably many more that I have not seen. How on earth do you find that kind of shameless serial spamming defensible? He is obviously advertizing his own work for only God knows what purpose. BlueMist
 * It is defensible because he has also added sourcing to TWENTY EIGHT unsourced statements. The intention is irrelevant, the result counts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Mercer: Analogy of the Divided Line Edits
Hi Mercer.philosophy,

Most, but not all of your changes to the Analogy of the Divided Line considerably degrade the contents. In particular, 1) English Wikipedia uses English titles, i.e. Timaeus, not the Greek title. 2) Your changing of 'Plato' to 'Socrates' is very wrong in the context of the article. The name of the puppet character is quite irrelevant when it comes to Plato's epistemology of the Republic.

Will you please reverse all your latest changes, with the exception of the Upper-lower case for the titles, which is great. BlueMist (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Who is this "we" who decides to credit the philosophy of the greatest philosopher in history to his primary literary character?


 * I see no evidence that you are familiar with the prevailing secondary literature, according to which, only the 'Socratic' dialogues mirror the views of the historical philosopher Socrates.


 * The 'middle' and 'late' dialogues are deemed as Plato's original philosophy, with the literary character Socrates as the primary protagonist. The Republic belongs to the middle group.


 * Do you have any peer-reviewed evidence or reference that supports your personal, unorthodox views?


 * I am transferring this conversation to talk:Analogy of the Divided Line for public comments. BlueMist (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the introduction to the Analogy of the Divided Line
We wrote:

--Mercer.philosophy (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerned that you did not practice diligent editing or possibly protecting a viewpoint???

 * BlueMist(talk) you recently deleted several edits that had links under see also to various viewpoints associated with relativism and also links under criticism as POV. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relativism&oldid=597962247 They are Wiki articles supported with ample references and are thus not POV. Did you look at the links before you deleted? It is proper to use links and a brief description in other articles. It is even encouraged. The links provide more details and all the needed references. It was not POV but supported by the linked articles. I hope this explains how referencing can and does work through associated articles. You are welcome to bring over all the references from linked articles but it is not necessary. I am concerned that you may not have been neutral in your POV. Maybe it is a simple misunderstanding. I added to a very deficient article from other wiki articles that oppose relativism under criticism. None of it was my original research or opinion but a brief from the articles I linked. You also removed them under see also. It appears you performed a quick revert without checking out the links. That happens way to much on wikipedia and hinders the development of articles and turns off others from editing. Please spend the time before reverting editing. If you do not have the time then leave it alone. Also consider challenging the edit and then things can get sorted out. Simple deleting is usually unconstructive. I hope this helps with future edits. 172.56.10.195 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC) P.S. Most edtors are ok with rewording or adding to an article but reverting is often like chopping of an arm becuase your finger is bleeding. Feel free to edit but use reverts cautiously. Most editors are not the experts they think they are except me. A little humor.


 * As it happens, I have considerable expertise on the topic of philosophical relativism gained through many years of academic research and interaction. Can you say the same?


 * The Relativism article desperately needs a thorough, positive, explanatory rewrite. Unfortunately, I see your added comments and even your added links, regardless of their source, as purely negative and deconstructive. BlueMist (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Claims on wiki unless verified are just unsubstaniated claims so unless you are outing yourself it is just a brag. Any nut can claim anything on Wiki so claiming something means nothing as a 13 year old can claim to have a doctorate here. You may be someone special but it would be illogical for me to assume anything about you other than you claim to be an expert. I could tell you I am an academic with a background in logic and even through on an expert hat but it would be of no use unless I could substaniate that claim. I could be a hobbyist making grandeous claims to add authority to my arguments.172.56.10.54 (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well at least you acknowledge you were upset with their tone but somewhat reluctantly acknowledge they were sourced. But they were under criticism so what would someone expect, praise? It appears you have reinforced my question about protecting a viewpoint. 172.56.10.54 (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am protecting wiki NPOV of a controversial topic. BlueMist (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again you are making my point. This is really not that controversial unless someone wants to push their viewpoint. Please note the logical statemnet I have made.172.56.10.54 (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I could not resist to point out the irony of someone defending relativism to say they are "protecting NPOV." That makes a moral universalist argument and somewhat contradicts relativism. The logical critique was too hard to resist. Sorry you are likely a good natured chap but we disagree on some philosophical viewpoints.172.56.10.54 (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Divided Line Link
I contest the removal of the informative and innocuous link to the Uebersax article:

1. On what basis do you call it "unphilosophical?" It cites all the major papers, and pursues a well-known and extremely important theme (the distinction between dianoia and noesis). It follows in large part Annas and Murdoch. Evidently what you mean is that it doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Divided Line.

2. The interpretation of the Divided Line is controversial. It is not your place to limit points of view, as long as they are reasonable, plausible, logically presented, and adequately referenced.

3. What are your qualifications to call it unphilosophical? Are you a professional philosopher?

4. Most importantly: Where is rule that says that philosophers alone own Plato, and that the only valid way to read Plato is philosophically? Wouldn't Plato have considered himself a psychologist (scientist of the mind or soul) as well as a philosopher? Would you please tell me the name of a single professional philosopher who would say that psychology is not a proper perspective to take on Plato? (I know dozens of professional philosophers who would assert the contrary.)

5. In any case, the citation does nothing but give users more information. It supplies the entire text (including 7.533d-534b, which the Wikipedia article doesn't even mention), and a solid, professional-caliber bibliography. Any academic researcher interested in this topic would find this bibliography most helpful indeed -- especially given the hyperlinks.

I am putting the link back in, and charge you with the burden of proof to demonstrate to the community of users that it shouldn't be in there!

If you wish for this to go to the next level, by all means let us both waste our time taking it there! However if we do this, you should be prepared to find that nobody agrees with you, and that you make yourself look very small by such actions.

Practical321 (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Practical, I resent your personal attacks and insinuations about my being this or that. I am not on trial here, and you are not the prosecution.


 * What is at issue is whether an online blog, you insist on linking, does or does not belong in this Wiki article. http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/plato1.htm is a personal blog by a non-professional, unqualified writer. The blog is a stew of philosophy, psychology, and religion. All of which are poorly thought out. Re-read the blog entry with attention to key philosophical terms, and you can judge for yourself. BlueMist (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called BlueMist. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name BlueMist~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your edits at Phaedrus
Your comment on Phaedrus was: "Madness, divine madness, and divine inspiration are all different. Your personal preference is not Wikipedia acceptable."

This is not my personal preference, but the wording currently used in the Themes section of the article in its current form at Phaedrus, which you may not have seen. The wording in the section you keep reverting is not consistent with the wording used in the Themes section which was written by a separate editor wnad which I am quoting here. Correct it with your own words if you like but the current version of the article is inconsistent between the wording used in these separate sections. Here is the Themes section version as written by the previous editor in the current version of the article:

Madness and divine inspiration
In the Phaedrus, Socrates makes the rather bold claim that some of life's greatest blessings flow from madness; and he clarifies this later by noting that he is referring specifically to madness inspired by the gods. It should be noted that Phaedrus is Plato's only dialogue that shows Socrates outside the city of Athens, out in the country. It was believed that spirits and nymphs inhabited the country, and Socrates specifically points this out after the long palinode with his comment about listening to the cicadas. After originally remarking that "landscapes and trees have nothing to teach me, only people do", Socrates goes on to make constant remarks concerning the presence and action of the gods in general, nature gods such as Pan and the nymphs, and the Muses, in addition to the unusually explicit characterization of his own daemon. The importance of divine inspiration is demonstrated in its connection with and the importance of religion, poetry and art, and above all else, love. Eros, much like in the Symposium, is contrasted from mere desire of the pleasurable and given a higher, heavenly function. Unlike in the Ion, a dialogue dealing with madness and divine inspiration in poetry and literary criticism, madness here must go firmly hand in hand with reason, learning, and self-control in both love and art. This rather bold claim has puzzled readers and scholars of Plato's work for centuries because it clearly shows that Socrates saw genuine value in the irrational elements of human life, despite many other dialogues that show him arguing that one should pursue beauty and that wisdom is the most beautiful thing of all.


 * That is the Themes section which is inconsistent with the section which you keep reverting. The section title used by the previous editor is explicit. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Since I believe that many of Wikipedia's philosophy related articles need improvement, I don't take reversing other editors' contributions lightly. There have to be multiple reasons, but mainly whether the contribution vandalizes the article, makes the article philosophically at odds with accepted professionally published sources, or less readable for casual visitors.

While I am delighted to encounter another person who takes as much pleasure from Plato's works as I do, I'm forced to oppose your edits on all of the above grounds. Of course, if you can find a peer reviewed professional article to support your addition, just as you have stated, then I will back off without further conditions. That cannot be your previous reference to Cooper's Introduction to the Phaedrus which is open in front of me. He says nothing about madness, (Phaedrus 244a ff).

Naturally, these are all based on my personal judgment. However, according to Wikipedia rules for resolving editing conflicts between editors {WP:DR}, you may not insist on changing the article over the other editor's objections, as you are doing. You need to have a consensus of other interested editors first. You don't have that.

Also, please have a look at {WP:NOR} "No original research" for guidelines.

BlueMist (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Query about Theory of Forms
Hi, BlueMist, I have a question about the article on Plato's Theory of Forms. I have been poking around the Wikiproject Philosophy pages and have seen several times how you have raised standards and fended off idiosyncratic edits. Though I will soon have been adding occasional Wikipedia articles for two years, I still feel a relative newbie. I've tended to work on obscure, neglected topics that I occasionally notice in my specialty. May I ask your advice about my proposals for revamping a more central article? The ToF article has been rated start-class apparently for some time and I'm tempted to adopt and improve it. I feel 1) that the topic is important, influential, and exciting, but the article does not convey that, 2) that the introductory paragraphs could offer a simpler, gentler entry to the subject, 3) that the main arguments for the Forms are not adequately surveyed, 4) that the shape of recent, academic debates is hardly touched upon, 5) that the theory's role in later history, art, and literature is under-served, etc. I have not published anything directly on the ToF and have no particular agenda but have taught it in many courses and think I could make a stab at improving these issues (while still retaining much of the material already on the page). But how should I start? Should I put these thoughts on the article's talk page or somewhere on Wikiproject philosophy? Is there some community I should discuss this with? Do you have suggestions or views about improving the article? I suppose I am asking you to mentor me through this ... If you encourage me, I'll think about it during the holidays and then make piecemeal additions early next year. What do you think? Thanks for any help, JohnD&#39;Alembert (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello JohnD&#39;Alembert,
 * Thank you for asking. I apologize for the blustery tone of my previous comments. I'm delighted by your willingness to donate time to Wikipedia. I suggest that you rewrite, completely if you see fit, any portion of any article that is of interest to you. Also, that you keep citations down as much as possible to peer reviewed online accessible articles or tertiary sources to avoid the appearance of original research. For whatever little that may mean, any improvement to Wikipedia's philosophy articles has my full support. BlueMist (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks, just newbie questions: I suppose my worry is about how to start a friendly discussion about modifying the work of others. If I put a question/proposal on the ToF talk page in the next few days would you take a quick look at it and see if you think its appropriate? Please tell me more about your next remark on citations. Most everything I use is online but I have been lazy about adding links to Internet Archive, JSTOR, etc. to the usual citation. I’ll put more of those in. I respect and value the NOR but you sent me scrambling back to read that policy. I understand it to endorse any quotation or summarizing of reliable published sources (except my own, of course) that does not reach a novel conclusion. Why do you say ‘online articles or tertiary sources’? You don’t mean that an article on Plato shouldn’t quote Plato because that is a primary source? More generally, I suppose I too am puzzled that Wikipedia articles on STEM subjects seem much better at accessibly reporting scholarly work, but that Wikipedia philosophy articles often seem to miss chunks of published research that grad students and scholars would be familiar with. I’ve enjoyed, say in E. N. Tigerstedt (partly my contribution and partly a trans.), playing a small role in filling in some of these gaps in Wikipedia. Anyway, sorry to go on, I’m a newbie and still learning the Wikipedia culture and am not clear about your advice above. Any help appreciated, but if you want to hold fire until I add a query to ToF that’s fine too! JohnD&#39;Alembert (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * John, You can make your modifications available for comments either on your own talk page for selected editors, or on the article's talk page for any interested party. The first gathers support, the second also surveys other interested parties. If you stay with the standard curriculum, or present alternate points of view, then neither of the above is needed. Novel, nonstandard approaches are prohibited, especially without established sources.


 * For the most part, primary sources are more essential to research articles. On Wikipedia, they might be suspect as original research, depending on the topic. Generally, accepted peer reviewed sources are preferred for a consensus based encyclopedia. The readership and the majority of editors are mostly unsophisticated, like your freshmen, therefore simplicity of presentation and minimal, streamlined references work best. Upper level students are more likely to seek out the IEP or the SEP articles, which are more acceptably opinionated or biased, but have extensive current bibliographies. Unfortunately, online depositories require university affiliations, but in this electronic age, what else is there? Many less popular but nonetheless important books are still not digitized for the general reader. I'm not sure that I've addressed your concerns. When in doubt, just do what you want. The quality of your work will speak for itself. BlueMist (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all that! Will do. If you get a chance, plz take a look at ToF talk page for proposals. Any suggestions are welcome, JohnD&#39;Alembert (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I confess I so wholeheartedly agree with what you say I was left a bit puzzled about why you said it. I was mulling it over during lunch yesterday and think I see what your concern is. Wikipedia has several programs encouraging academics to get more involved and perhaps discussing this issue will help clarify how they can contribute to Wikipedia.

We both agree that Wikipedia like other encyclopedias should reflect consensus, established views that are readily verifiable by reference to reliable published sources and should not include any original research on the part of the article writer. For me, ‘original research’ is what the NOR policy says: no original analysis or synthesis or conclusions that are not already in the reliable, published sources. This means that merely reporting (quoting or summarizing) is not original research (I wish it were! My day job would be much easier!).

However, I guess that for you and me there is a ‘scope’ difference. Since I’m familiar with a much larger range of literature than show up in online encyclopedia articles and therefore may quote from sources that seem ‘obscure,’ it may seem that I am doing ‘research’ merely by quoting these sources. But they are not obscure to academics! We hold whole conferences on these subjects. I suppose I’ve enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia precisely on what I think of as ‘obscure, neglected’ subjects because there are gaps in Wikipedia’s coverage of the published literature that would be apparent to any scholar.

I’d be interested in your reaction to a concrete example. As part of my ‘original research’ I am working hard on developing a new or deeper interpretation of how Jean de Serres (1540 – 1594) and other Protestant reformers transformed our view of Plato. de Serres was an internationally famous and important French historian and an advisor to Henry IV, but English Wikipedia had nothing on him. So alongside my original research, I translated the French Wikipedia stub on him. Now as I read through his major publications (most of which are online), it’s easy for me to expand the article by adding a descriptive paragraph on each. Those will not include any new analysis or synthesis or opinions or interpretation. They will be lists of facts of the form ‘His book is about x. For example, he says y.’ (How else to write an encyclopedia article on the biography of a scholar?) I will also in parallel aim at developing an ‘original’ interpretation but that goes on the other side of the firewall in the paper/book I will publish with my name on it. Now my question is whether you think this is ok? I see the encyclopedia article as something that’s easy for me to do ‘en passant’ but a model of how academics can contribute to Wikipedia. I am adding material beyond what is available in online encyclopedias and am quoting from primary sources, but I believe my Wikipedia article contains no ‘original research’ in the sense of the NOR. If I’ve misunderstood something, let’s straighten this out. I do apologize for going on but I’m a newbie and value your views … JohnD&#39;Alembert (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Since de Serres' History, and Latin translation and commentaries in the Stephanus edition of Plato are notable, I don't see a problem there. There is a scarcity of English language references which needs to be addressed, in whatever manner available. You inspired me to take a spy satellite's view tour of papers on Galileo's anti-dogmatist and Bellarmine's Platonism. BlueMist (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added a link to Jean de Serres in Plato#Textual_sources_and_history. BlueMist (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Axioms and truth and opinions
Hi Blue Mist,

I'm not responding here to your edit, which in itself is OK; the citation does need to be improved (I said as much) and it's reasonable to ask who, although that would probably go further down in the body rather than in the lead.

But the edit summary has me scratching my head. You wrote This is just wrong; dogmatism is not the only opinion in mathematics. What do you mean by that?? Even if you identify realism with dogmatism (that would need explanation, but that's for another day), the text that you challenged does not say that anything is the "only" opinion. It says just about the opposite, that there are a multitude of opinions. I don't follow you here. --Trovatore (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Trovatore,

70.53.24.43 said:
 * (1) technically, no position is taken on the truth of a set of axioms. they are merely premises that might be true. the formal process of deduction states that if the set of axioms is true than the set of deductions follows; a theorem is said to be true if the axioms that led to it's deduction are. but, the correctness of an axiom is neither discussed nor relevant. the relevant concept is consistency.
 * (2)it's a subtle point, but glossing over it can have serious consequences. the rejection of absolute truth is the great insight of modern mathematics, an insight that has yet to work it's way to other fields. explicitly making this point whenever possible should be done to get the idea out and circulating, and aid in the abolition of superstition.

I believe that point (1) is entirely correct. Mathematics is neutral on the ontological or veridical status of axioms. Truth of axioms, from the point of view of mathematics, is totally irrelevant.

Point (2) urges the rejection of the absolute truth of dogmatism in mathematics. While absolute dogmatism in religion and morality is highly desirable for pragmatic reasons, it is untenable either logically or empirically in mathematics or the sciences. Both our conceptions and the empirical world are contingent upon their 1) physical environment, 2) observation or sense-perception, and 3) universal change over time. For an example, just look at the history of Euclid's Parallel Axiom.

As far as your citation,

Eric D. Hetherington, (Review of Metaphysics) "Maddy, Penelope, Naturalism in Mathematics (1997) examines what justifies the axioms of set theory? ... Part 2, "Realism," reviews three versions of mathematical realism [including Maddy's previous position, set-theoretic realism] and gives reasons for abandoning these views. Part 3, "Naturalism," furnishes a look at Maddy's new philosophy of mathematics, Mathematical Naturalism."

Jeffrey Roland, Maddy and Mathematics (2007) "Naturalism ... explains the reliability of scientific practice. Maddy's account, on the other hand, appears to be unable to similarly explain the reliability of mathematical practice without violating one of its central tenets."

Need I say more?

BlueMist (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So what you've found is someone who disagrees the position. Yes, definitely, there are people who disagree with it (and yes, it is also true that Maddy herself no longer holds it).  Nevertheless it remains an important position in the philosophy of mathematics.  We are not here to decide which position is the right one to take.  --Trovatore (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly my point !

It is OK to present all points of view, with or even without citations, according to Wikipedia's unbreakable NPOV policy:

But it is not OK for you to push your biases on Wikipedia at the expense of other people's biases, especially not if you cannot even support your own views. BlueMist (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. The text you challenged was precisely about presenting all points of view. --Trovatore (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

nonexistence
Your enlightened argument about the "nonexistence of nonexistence" is perfectly valid in about the same way that "nonsense does not make sense, therefore it must be an invalid concept". Well done. The encyclopedic world can be proud of such open-minded contributions. Think again, if chance allows you to. Btw: this article might help. -- Kku 10:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't a question of being enlightened, it's a question of logic. You asked for an argument, and I gave you one. My argument is Parmenidean, and is valid for any Parmenidean dichotomous metaphysics.
 * It isn't a question of being enlightened, it's a question of logic. You asked for an argument, and I gave you one. My argument is Parmenidean, and is valid for any Parmenidean dichotomous metaphysics.


 * Mathematics has its own strict notion of existence, even as there is nothing in my pocket. Except a hole and its shadow. Is space nothing? Does space exist? How about the universe? Salmon's argument is equivocal, his metaphysics are confused. BlueMist (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Found on the talk page of Existence:
 * "Being is that which belongs to every conceivable term, to every possible object, of thought-in short to everything that can possibly occur in any proposition, true or false, and to all such propositions themselves...


 * To exist is to have a specific relation to existence-a relation, by the way, which existence itself does not have ... For what does not exist must be something, or it would be meaningless to deny its existence ; and hence we need the concept of being, as that which belongs even to the non-existent."
 * — pp. 449-450, Bertrand Russell - The Principles of Mathematics - New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 1903, second edition 1937.
 * BlueMist (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Self-disorder
Thank you for your help on the self-disorder article, which is very necessary. I have a rudimentary understanding of the subject, but not enough to make a complete article. Every little bit helps. Thank you! --Beneficii (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Galilean relativity and Galilean invariance
Galilean 'invariance' is fundamentally incoherent without an understanding of Galilean 'relativity'.

Galilean relativity is exemplified by a sleeping man who is both not moving in his bed and is, at the same time, moving around the Earth and moving around the Sun at different velocities. If this single example is true, then Galilean relativity which says that all things are both moving AND not moving at the same time is necessarily implied. This is a fundamental philosophical insight that underlies all modern science.

Galilean invariance is a related inner Galilean/Newtonian principle of physics. It says that the laws of physics are invariant in each of the above three and all other Galilean/Newtonian inertial frames. However, without an infinite number of potential points of view, or origins for potential frames of reference, this scientific invariance would be meaningless.

BlueMist (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps no one understands the points that you wish to make. Perhaps you could elaborate.  In particular, what do you mean by inner principle of physics and how you see Galilean invariance differing from Galilean relativity.  Constant314 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say "no one", but having researched this topic for years, I agree with you that this quite simple and absolutely incontrovertible principle turns out to be very difficult to accept, even to understand, even for highly intelligent and educated people. The reason for this turns out not to be the principle, but the rigidity of our psychological habits.


 * We live in our personal immediate material world, the one we can touch, taste, and smell, and this world is relative to us, the 'I' each of us is. We are the origin of our unique 'frame of reference', so that 'I am here, now' at all times in all places as long as I live.


 * Contrast this to "Galilean relativity" I described above. In the Galilean scientific world, which is different from my world, or my 'I', everything is relative to some arbitrary frame of reference, rather than to my 'I'. That arbitrary frame is set, for practical purposes, such as conceptual or calculational simplicity, to be anywhere, and at any time, in the universe.


 * Let's switch from the philosopher's perspective to the physicist's. The physicist accepts without question and without further thought the principles of the physical universe. A principle is different than a hypothesis or a law in this respect. Philosophical principles are unquestionable to a physicist. Once he does question one of the philosophical principles of physics, then he has stepped outside physics, back up to philosophy.


 * "Galilean invariance" is not a principle needed by the philosopher. I don't even think it can possibly be derived from the broader concept of "Galilean relativity". "Galilean invariance" is a practical principle of physics so that physics, as a universal science with universal laws, can do its job. Just as Euclidean space was needed by Newton for his work.


 * Well, I'll assume that this piece of philosophy of science is even harder to understand than the simple "Galilean relativity" I started with.


 * In any case, if you search the internet for "Galilean relativity", most physics notes will immediately talk about "invariance" because that is their practical need. But not all. There are some few physicists out there who do understand the relativity of Galileo's ship thought experiments.  BlueMist (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

On Bertrand Russell's History
This is a bit off topic for the Philosopher article so I'm just going to post it here. Russell's critique of Aristotelian logic is the least controversial aspect of History. I don't know where you got the idea that it is controversial that not all logic is reducible to Aristotelian predicate logic, that's been true since Frege and uncontroversial for the last 50 years at least. The controversy is mostly over its triumphalism of analytic philosophy at the end and its seeming dismissiveness of Kant and most of the people that followed him. That is uncontroversially unreasonable.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How can you say "That is uncontroversially unreasonable" ?

Russell's 19th century background was deep in the Kantian tradition. Whatever he said, whether you and I, and the majority of professionals agree, was well reasoned. The difference is in the biases that each of us brings to that judgment. As you know, 'everyone agrees that x' is just a fallacy. What counts are the differences in presumptions that lead to differences in conclusions.

As Russell said,
 * A History of Western Philosophy : Russell himself had something to say about the book: "I regarded the early part of my History of Western Philosophy as a history of culture ... I was sometimes accused by reviewers of writing not a true history but a biased account of the events that I arbitrarily chose to write of. But to my mind, a man without bias cannot write interesting history — if, indeed, such a man exists.

Looking at A History of Western Philosophy, concluding paragraph of Chapter XXII "Aristotle's Logic" (1945, page 202 / 1961, page 225) :
 * ''I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant. ...
 * Unfortunately, [Aristotle's logical writings] appeared at the very end of the creative period of Greek thought, and therefore came to be accepted as authoritative. By the time that logical originality revived, a reign of two thousand years had made Aristotle very difficult to dethrone.
 * Throughout modern times, practically every advance in science, in logic, or in philosophy has had to be made in the teeth of the opposition from Aristotle's disciples.''

Do you think that Russell wrote this strong condemnation of authoritarian practices without a thorough rationale? There are many problems with philosophy today. Aristotelian philosophy as such, as Aristotle conceived it, is not really one of those problems. The primary problem is dogged academic dogmatism.

If you survey (as I have) the literature, online philosophy course syllabi and notes, and professors who teach a standardized curriculum, you will see that only Aristotelian philosophy and its modern Analytic incarnation get a fair treatment. What's even worse is that we are taught metaphysics and logic in one standard shade.

Analytic philosophy has reached a dead end. It has nowhere to go. Who are the historically great philosophers of the past 50 years? Where have even the Carnaps, Quines, and Kripkes gone?

Disclaimer: I am not, and have never been personally affected by any of the above. All I ask for is academic freedom for academics, academic integrity, and professional acknowledgment that there is a dogmatism problem that needs to be addressed and resolved, especially with regard to modern science. I would like to see some progress in our lifetimes.

BlueMist (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)