User talk:WillowW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Archives through November 2006

[edit] Cyclol

Sorry to hassle you again over this one, but you seem to be under the impression that ther is one single "Scientific Method" (my capitals). If there is such a thing, then nobody has been able to define it... I completely agree with you that the history of cyclols is a great example of how science works in practice (including making huge simplifications which later turn out to be unjustified, but which also allow development in parallel fields) However, you cannot simply try to fit it into one philosophical background, given the general difficulty in defining "science". Scientists do not behave "like they should do" according to philosophers, and this aspect also needs to be discussed. Physchim62 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Physchim62, I feel really bad that I haven't been able to work on Cyclol, and hope that you'll forgive me. I do believe that your insights will improve the article, but it is a significant undertaking, as I'm sure you agree. As I see it, there are two difficulties lying before us. First and foremost, we need to come to agreement about the scope of the concept "scientific method" suitable for the Cyclol article. Secondly, we need to correct my failings of exposition, which resulted in some misapprehensions (factual inaccuracies) in your proposed replacement text. Let's focus on the first difficulty for now.
I'll say upfront that I'm daunted by the philosophy of science, although I have an elementary understanding of the practice of science. I do appreciate that science is done in many, many ways and that personality & funding issues can play as big a role as scientific observations. But I also feel that an exposition of the various philosophies of scientific reasoning lies outside the scope of the article, as you probably agree. We also probably agree that the Cyclol episode is not illustrative of how Knowledge can be acquired, but rather of how scientific theories are accepted or rejected by the scientific community. We should also consider the background knowledge of our typical reader; it seems plausible to assume that most readers will be unfamiliar with the extensive literature on the philosophy of the scientific method.
As far as I have been able to glean, a major division between Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and Karl Popper is how they model changes in scientific theories. However, those differences do not pertain here, since the Cyclol theory was the very first structural model of a protein; it was not replacing any prior picture.
I'm pretty sure that using experimental observations to rule out hypotheses is a very, very old principle/practice in science (Galileo springs to mind) and was not invented by Karl Popper, whatever his originality in nomenclature. So we don't need to mention him or any of the other 20th century philosophers, right?
Shall we pause here? I'm interested in your reactions, especially because I may have misunderstood you and/or the difficulty. Willow 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This month's winner is RNA interference!

RNA interference
This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is RNA interference.
Please help to improve this article to featured article status.
Last month's collaboration was proteasome

– ClockworkSoul 14:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclol FA

Congrats on your hard work paying off! Great job! – ClockworkSoul 15:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Clockwork! The FA made me very happy; but the article was — and continues to be — the work of several committed editors, all of whom should be thanked and congratulated on their work. :) Perhaps we'll tackle homology modeling next? Willow 16:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Encyclopædia Britannica contribs

Great job on Encyclopædia Britannica, your contributions there are really looking good! Keep it up! :) JoeSmack Talk 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Not in EB

Template:Not in EB has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pleonastic apodictics from the MP

I gather you must be the sweet-natured shepherdess who guides these articles through the treacherous shoals, a veritable Phlegyasian figure. I suspect that your work on the Encyclopedia Britannica article has revealed to you that the Britannica stalwarts have constructed a family of encyclopedic articles aimed at at least 6 different levels of sophistication, all the way from preschool to postgraduate level. I agree with you that something like this might eventually be of value here on Wikipedia. For example, consider the articles evolution, Introduction to evolution and evolution. Granted, they still all need quite a bit of polishing, but one can imagine that eventually they might approach the model you have in mind.

On one of your other points, suppose we waited until an article was reasonably complete before it was polished and the text turned into English, the introduction made accessible to the hoi polloi, etc. This has several potential drawbacks:

  • the article might take several years to reach some sort of complete state, and in that meantime it might be far less useful than it otherwise might be
  • editors can take ownership and jealously guard even the most incomprehensible and unreadable text, making it impossible to effect needed changes if one waits too long. Editors can feel that there is no reason to change since the text has been "stable" for a long time.
  • nonspecialists in a given area will not be encouraged to participate if the article is inaccessible, overly laden with jargon etc. I have contributed far more to articles outside my area of expertise than in my specialty areas. I can offer fresh insight in outside areas. I also learn more that way. I have written critiques of the lead sections of several areas in biology. I might very well be blind to the shortcomings of articles in my own area. I have worked with some of the wording and concepts for so long that I assume "everyone" knows that, when in fact it is not even remotely true.

I apologize for my circumlocutious prolixity and ambagious dialectic. I remain, yours, the MP --Filll 17:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's wonderful to meet someone cut from the same cloth; clearly, we both share an intoxicated love of words, especially Greek ones. Your words seem to lift off the page and transform before my eyes into shining gold Greek letters, suspended in the air.
You excellently distill an all-too-common trap that any editor can fall into. It's so hard to read our own articles with fresh eyes, to imagine ourselves reading the article for the first time and sincerely struggling to understand it. And once having recognized the problem, it's even harder to lay out that honey trail, to craft an article that edifies the beginner but satisfies the expert (or, at least doesn't provoke their disdain!)
Luckily, we're not alone — we have each other. Opabinia has been my very best eyes, seeing what I could not, and transforming my thorny thickets into beautiful gardens. I know she sincerely believes as you do in making Wikipedia's articles accessible, which is Wikipedia's most fundamental promise. Please let me encourage you to be patient with her, and with me, and with the rest of us here; we may yet surprise you with how fast we make our articles both readable and complete. I vow, perhaps more ardently than wisely, that even you will be content with gene and DNA and genetics before 2007 is over. With affection for my logophilic friend, Willow 19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I've been working on Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector for a while now, and am considering submitting it early next year as a Featured Article candidate. Would you be so kind as to look it over and share your thoughts? It seems perfectly suited to your talents. :)
I am not a conventional MP. I have travelled far and wide in search of interesting applications. I did spend more than a year at one point doing research in computational linguistics. I also spent a considerable amount of time taking classes in French literature (en Français, bien sur). I did take a quick glance at your article on what we call the RL vector. The figures are beautiful. I will look at it more carefully later and make more extensive comments, but I do see notation problems, and some terminology problems and confusions. The RL vector is a beautiful result, however.
P.S. Frau Noethe was not impressed with her work in this area, since she was a real mathematician, and her efforts on this problem were trivial for her. I understand she considered it beneath her, since she did not work on such garbage. She worked on real problems instead of toys, unlike the physicists. The physicists on the other hand, were overjoyed and this sort of group theoretic reasoning that she employed still occupies a prominent place in the pantheon of MP results. She was also a bit haphazard in her appearance, so her students took to calling her "Herr Noethe". There is a story told by physicists for the last century about how during a lecture when she was filling blackboard after blackboard with the densest equations, her underpants came loose and dropped to the floor. She did not miss one word or one symbol. She did not pause for one second. Frau Noethe stepped deftly out of her undergarments which were around her ankles and kicked them aside so she could continue calculating furiously, to the amazement of her students. When she was being hired as a faculty member, Hilbert had to do battle with the other faculty members in literature and history etc, who were not happy about females invading academe. Hilbert famously said "Meine Herren, eine Universität ist doch keine Badeanstalt!" to quiet their objections. I even put that quote in my thesis.-Filll 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement

Announcement
The "Help name my baby" Poll has closed :). Greta Annette was born 12/12/06. She weighs 6lbs 14oz and is 19inches long. Mother and baby are both doing fine. Thanks for all the suggestions!

To keep this slightly Wikipedia related I have started Adopt a State, so adopt your state article today! -Ravedave (help name my baby) 03:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector at ru.wikipedia

Hi! I'm sorry to say that I didn't participate in the discussion (my comments were on other articles): my knowledge of physics is mostly limited to the school curriculum. Anyway, the vote there is for Good Article status, not FA, and it's irrelevant to the subject. So far what has been questioned is style (one commenter says "it feels like a translation") and the translation of some technical terms. I'll keep you updated if something valuable appears. Edricson 17:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/l/User_talk%7EWillowW_74bb.html"