User talk:TBR-qed

Hello again1 I see that you are working on the article. :) Very nice! One question: I see that you have several places where you have made the text appear in "boxes" by placing a "space" first in the sentence. Are these intended to be marked as quotations? If so, there is another way that this should be done. I have made the first "box" as a quote here. Use the same coding in the article if you like.

A scientist, whether theorist or experimenter, puts forward statements, or systems of statements, and tests them step by step.

In the field of the empirical sciences, … he constructs hypotheses, or systems of theories, and tests them against experience by observation and experiment.^[1]: 3

Or if you want to have the rows in the box beginning at certain words, you use the : like this:

A scientist, whether theorist or experimenter, puts forward statements, or systems of statements, and tests them step by step.

In the field of the empirical sciences, … he constructs hypotheses, or systems of theories, and tests them against experience by observation and experiment.^[1]: 3

The basic form of a "qoute-box" is this:

Here you write the quote and the reference, and end it all with two brackets. Look in the code and you'll see how it's done.

The rules of coding within a quote-box are a bit different from the ordinary coding. I hope this helps you somewhat. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You correctly guessed I intended indented quotations. I will correct my errors. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Instrumentalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Value. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, TBR-qed. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:TBR-qed/sandbox}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the categories, etc on the Instrumentalism article.--Bamyers99 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Instrumentalism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Deduction and Induction. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Instrumental action page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Instrumental and value-rational action page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I am planning to revise the title above to "Situational logic." Will this title change cause any problems with existing links? IF so, how can I resolve those problems? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple of different ways to handle this- maybe the easiest is to create the new page, move the old material there and change situational analysis into a redirect page.

[]

The simple version of how to do this- remove all the old text from Sit. analysis and leave this as the ONLY text on that page For example #REDIRECT situational logic

Drop a note on my talk page if this isn't clear and I can do it for you, once you have created the new pageSethie (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Please do not create a separate page and then do copy&paste moves. That only presents a nasty clean iup for some admin to do a history merge, unless you are going to WP:SPLIT the artivcle and wind up with two valid articles on different but related topics. To change the name of an article, please do a peroper move which moves the history along eith the content, and leaves a redirect behind, so no links are broken. It can also be undone much more simply, if anyone wants to do that. Whether the specific change you have suggested is a good idea I have no opinion on, thre doesn't seem a gret deal of difference to me. But please do not follow the suggestion of Sethie above to create a page and copy content and paste it into the new page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

My bad, I stand corrected. Sethie (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi! In order to indicate the languages you understand, you may wish to place a template like

{{babel|en|fr-3|es-2}}

on your user page. You should modify (or omit) the number suffixes according to your needs. Regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I saw you started a major revision of Problem of induction, and removed the funeral picture. My motivation for inserting both the sunrise and the funeral picture was to indicate why there is a problem of induction at all. Seeing only the sunrise picture, a reader will most likely think "So what? I already knew that the sun always rises in the east". The funeral picture (inspired by Russell's "chicken induction", found at Inductive_reasoning#Criticism) should indicate that inductive generalization of properties may lead to problematic conclusion. Maybe another picture is better suited for that purpose, but I think some picture indicating a problem should be present. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SK2242 was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Problem of induction and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Problem of induction, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SK2242 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

SK2242: Thank you for your quick response. You give 3 reasons—violations of WP protocols—for rejecting my sandbox proposal. 1) It reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article; 2) too many primary sources, not secondary; 3) full of valuations, violating neutrality.

I immediately grant the appearance of these violations, but argue that the following substantive issues show I am not violating but covering new ground. 1) present article is obsolete. 2) It cannot be corrected with additional sources, but must be reframed for 21st century conditions. 3)The valuations reside in the subject matter and are made by scholars described, not by me.

I suspect that testing the validity of my response will require opinions of subject matter experts, not just judgments of violated WP protocols. Please respond to this explanation of why I am not violating the rules.

1). The following table shows scholars covered in present article, in my primary source Sloman and Lagnado (S&L), and in my proposal, documenting my charge of obsolesence. It is not sensible just to add a few names to the existing long list.

COVERAGE: Why the present article “Problem of induction” is obsolete:

Present article S&L my proposal Philosophers Hume Hume Hume Popper Popper Goodman Goodman Goodman Pyrrhonists Logical empiric Pyrrhonists Carvaka Hempel Carvaka Quine Quine Dewey Stove & Williams Miller & Lipton Campbell & Costa Carnap al-Ghazali & Ockham Hacking Scotus Nagel Salmon Kuhn

Hard scientists 0 0 Duhem

Social scientists 0 Rosch Rosch Tversky Kahneman Kahneman Shepard Rips Carey Sloman Osherson Lopez Hampton Gelman & Coley Mandler & McDonough Nisbett Gopnik & Meltzoff and more.

2). I have numerous secondary sources—10 out of 19 by my count—which is not low for modern evidence.

3) The subject ”Problem of induction” is itself a criticism of this form of reasoning, and most of my scholars deny its rationality as they use it. Duhem and Dewey solve the problem of induction. All of the others perpetuate it as they condemn it. These are not my valuations.

I can’t believe that WP protocols are intended to be inflexible in a 21st century encyclopedia.TBR-qed (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)