User talk:Ian Maxwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Regarding the Björk article: please edit freely. I think the overhaul is more or less done. The old contents of the article are still at Talk:Björk/Temp, if you're interested in incorporating any of that stuff. Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 19:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I was mainly looking at the article as a translator into Esperanto, but I'll see if there's anything I can add to it as well. -- Ian Maxwell 2004-03-12-0304 (UTC)

Hi, Ian. I made a point on the discussion page of non-cognitivism that you might want to look at. One is tempted to rewrite the article again, despite the nice job you've done with it, based on these objections. On the other hand, I might be mistaken. --Dr. Ebola

[edit] Local meetups?

Hi Ian,

We have local meetups around Boston, and Wikimania is being planned for here... you should come hang out with us some time :-) +sj + 20:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grue

The text right now is

“Another possible resolution of the paradox is that "x is grue" is not solely a predicate of x, but of x and the time--we can know that an object is green without knowing the current time, but we cannot know that it is grue. If this is the case, we should not expect "x is grue" to remain true when the time changes.”

I understand that this is quite a strong argument, but it still does not answer fundamental problem of “the new puzzle of induction” namely: WHY do we know that green is independent of time while grue is not(especially considering that green can be defined as disjunction of grue and bleen)?

Is More NPOVing required?--Hq3473 04:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I've added a further comment to it on the disjunctive definition. I personally think that argument is ridiculous, because green can be defined without reference to the time, while grue cannnot, but... yeah. NPOV can get really hairy when it comes to matters of logic. --Ian Maxwell 04:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a thoughtful edit. I think it should stay the way it is from now on. However I disagree that the argument is completely ridiculous, I agree that the usual definition of green does not require time, this however keeps begging the questions “WHY does not the definition of green require reference to time?” and “why does definition of grue REQUIRES reference time?”--Hq3473 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monamory

Monamory has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this term might not be significant enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so. Remember, however, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so articles about the meanings and usages of terms are not appropriate either.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)