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] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BjorkPost.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:BjorkPost.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)