User talk:Petersburg/Archive 1

nontransitive dice
I notice that you disagree with my reverting of your addition of the phrase "i.e. cannot be carried forth". I feel that my revert was constructive, as removing confusing and unnecessary wording from Wikipedia is helpful. I feel that the phrase "cannot be carried forth" is unclear, and, since it does not have a link to further explanation as transitive does, it was better to remove it. I have never seen the phrase "carried forth" applied to a relation (I am a native english speaker and I have a phd in mathematics); perhaps you could give me some idea of why you think this phrasing is helpful? Otherwise I think it should be removed. Welcome to Wikipedia. Doctormatt 21:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your claim that the introduction is "utterly insufficient" is not, in my view, correct. The intro you suggest would be "Nontransitive dice are dice that are not transitive.". The actual intro says more than that: it says
 * that the term applies to particular sets of dice, and not simply to dice taken independently;
 * that there is a relation related to the set of dice that is nontransitive;
 * that that relation is "is more likely to roll a higher number".
 * I agree that the intro could be improved. However, I believe the best way to improve it would be to include an example, and there is one just below the intro.  Introductions are a challenge for many mathematical articles; this article has the advantage that we can give an example that I think makes the concept quite clear to someone who is at least a little comfortable with the notion of probability.
 * Your suggestion that I "contemplate for a few days what the editor intended" indicates, I think, your lack of experience at Wikipedia. Wikipedia moves much faster than the pace you seem to wish it did.  In any case, I didn't need a few days to know that your addition was anti-helpful to the article.  While I agree that comtemplation is an extremely good thing, you might want to take a look at WP:BOLD and what it suggests about the culture of Wikipedia.  If you don't mind, I'd also like to ask you the rhetorical question: did you contemplate for a few days what the editor intended before you reverted my revert?
 * Finally, while at Wikipedia, it is helpful to get used to the fact that bad edits will be reverted: that is simply how Wikipedia works. Maybe your second addition to Wikipedia will survive the cut, or spur an actual improvement. Cheers, Doctormatt 02:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Hi Petersburg. I wanted to help avoid going further in circles at the Astrology page. There are real improvements to the article that could be made, but the current debate is about a misconception. It is not policy that calls astrology a pseudoscience, but sources, such as this essay by famous philosopher of science Paul Thagard. It's called Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience and begins with this statement: "Most philosophers and historians of science agree that astrology is a pseudoscience, but there is little agreement on why it is a pseudoscience... I shall propose a complex criterion for distinguishing disciplines as pseudoscientific..." He goes on to lay out in great detail his theory. It's a very nice article. There are many others like it that meet our reliable sourcing standards. So when editors mention that policy allows us to call something a pseudoscience, it is implied that there are a preponderance of sources which have already done so. Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any questions. Ocaasi (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ocaasi, I have great respect for your work here and take everything you say into serious consideration. I'm trying to get the pro-astrology editors see that their fight to remove references to pseudoscience is futile. I believe we can already see the result of this effort in a change of Erekint's attitude and a lessening of pushing extreme views by others. The next step is to come up with a formulation that is verifiable and reflects consensus view. While the latter is not necessary, it will go a long way towards stability of the page.


 * NThe Thagard essay you cite is a great piece of work: the author is very much informed about the subject and the line of reasoning is well thought out. Perhaps we could use the first line of this work as is? That way we would use a reliable source, adhere to relevant policies and guidelines and would even state the truth as far as we can tell. Petersburg (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Could you please take the time to read Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience? NW ( Talk ) 15:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology ban
Please see. Moreschi (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)