User talk:Jok2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Thank you for your recent contribution to a few logic articles. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well. 


--Philogo 13:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome to my page

Welcome. You're probably here because I reverted you. This is because you are wrong, or at least must now show that you are not by using a citation, although this seems rare. Thanks for stopping by. Jok2000 (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twin_paradox

May be, I have to apologize for bad english, but it should be possible to understand, what the content of the message was. So, please turn it to better english, but think about, what was meant. The "paradox" arises from the statement: you can not decide, who moves. But that is simply not the truth! One, who can measure speed of light is able to measure the distance between to stars! ErNa 12:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's the change in the meaning of the word "moves" that creates a paradoxical statement. I think everyone agrees on who is moving and who isn't in this particular thought experiment.Jok2000 19:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the problem is: I can say, I move, but that might be a lie or not the truth. A misunderstanding in RT is: There is no fixed frame is not equivalent to: I can not determine, which twin moves. I can determine this, and still there is no fixed frame. Whenever someone states: I can say, which twin travels, he is abused to be an "antirelativist". That makes live complicated. ErNa 22:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR and Toronto

I take exception to a claim that I violated 3RR:

(cur) (last) 14:20, 7 December 2005 Jok2000 m (rv to last version by E. Pluribus Anthony. 3RR vio. by texture & ae871)

I reverted ae871 twice and then chose to compromise by only moving the link to a new section and not removing it. After that I have only one more edit that removed a duplicate link but retained the new link by ae871. Jok2000, please look at the facts before making allegations. - Tεxτurε 18:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Okay, you didn't. I simply read the talk page where someone else claimed you did 3RR, and a history on the Toronto page showed 4 edits. Jok2000 19:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Square One Shopping Centre

First of all, thanks for saying you like my work on the Square One Shopping Centre page. But what's the problem with the images being in the body of the text. I just don't like the look of a gallery with just 2 images in it. How 'bout if I put the logo at the bottom and the photograph of the Cityside entrance at the top with the aerial pic? I just really don't like the gallery thing for this page.

Now on something else: I see your're a Torontonian, where abouts? I'm from Mississauga.

--Mb1000 22:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am from just North of Toronto, and incidentally, I took that aerial shot on the way back from Europe last year, so feel free to make it as big as needed to look good on the page ;) Kidding aside, the non-gallery page has different sized images all over the place, whereas the gallery has my photo and two small photos, I think the non-uniformity is what the other guy doesn't like about it. Jok2000 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's you who took the picture! Great shot! Here's a picture of Old City Hall I took a couple of years ago. About the Square One page, how about if we make the logo smaller? --Mb1000 22:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Fort

I respectfully disagree with your Philip K. DIck edit; this is far, very far, from a page about UFOs. Dick was in a long-time correspondence with the founders of the International Fortean Organisation (INFO) Ron and Paul Willis, (also the editors of the INFO Journal to which Dick subscribed). The International Fortean Organisation (see Wiki entry) is dedicated to Charles Fort, a very major influence on Dick and most of the leading lights of 20th-century science fiction. See, also, Charles Fort, Fortean Society. Tiffany Thayer. The Willis Brothers also published some of Dick's original short stories in their pre INFO sci-fi magazine "Anubis". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.118.74 (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, what Dick wrote seems different from the goals of this organization. Do you have some book or other citation aside from the wiki entry on the FORT page, which itself has no citation that explains the influence on Dick? Jok2000 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean the by 'goals" of this organization? See the wiki entry for the International Fortean Organisation. To paraphrase British philosopher John Michell a person influenced by Charles Fort realizes that "the world is very different from the way we are generally brought up to regard it." (From Cosmology and Watercolour, an exhibition at the Christopher Giggs Gallery, London. in 2003. ) Dick always questioned the nature of phenomenal reality and encouraged the organization for being a showcase for the fantastic reality of Charles Fort. Dick's short stories are often about the hero being tweaked by the Cosmic Joker. Dick was very much a part of this organization. The Edinburgh Science Fiction Society has written, as has many others, about the major influence of Charles Fort on 20th-century science fiction greats. Dick, along with Stephen King, was one of these. Respectfully yours, Anon````

Thanks. Just cite the appropriate Edinburgh Science Fiction Society brief when putting back the deleted line. Jok2000 13:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit‎

You have changed just one of the instances of "Dawkins's" to "Dawkins' ". Are all the others correct? If not, what do you propose to do with them? According to Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending in s, z, or x "the best advice is to respect [...] consistency".--Old Moonraker 11:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, citation trumps policies like that. Search amazon.com for Dawkins' God and you will see the correct form used by a citable expert. Jok2000 13:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about which spelling to flourish in triumph ("trump") on your talk page, I would just like to see the same spelling throughout the article: i.e., consistency. --Old Moonraker 13:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm failing to make the point well enough here: apologies. Taken it to a wider participation on article talk page. --Old Moonraker 14:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to the Japanese Music article

If you wish to revert another editor, then fine - but when doing so please find out if there have been any other edits between the edit you are reverting from and to. I made an edit in the Japanese Music article, after the user who you reverted. When you reverted his edit, you also reverted mine. Try making a manual edit next time. thanks Sennen goroshi 01:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You deleted a reference to the Blue Hearts, a notable Japanese Punk band from the Punk rock section. I see you went and did it again. I have other things to do today, but I may be back to correct your inaccurate edit, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Jok2000 12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not "do it again" my first edit was to the taiko section, merely rewording a badly written section. My next edit was to change the punk section to Alternative Rock, and having done so, remove Blue Hearts, as I happen to agree with you, they are punk.

How about keeping the alternative rock section (which is where stuff like shonen knife belongs) and also making a punk section for Japanese punk and hardcore punk? BTW dont confuse me with the other editor you were having issues with, there are more than 2 people editing that page.Sennen goroshi 13:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. despite you wishing to revert my edits rather than discuss them, I would like to discuss this a little further, before descending into a petty revert frenzy. After consideration, I think some of the bands included are more than worthy of being called punk, Ellegarden, Blue Hearts and TMGE are worthy - the others are not. They are far more rock/alternative rock than anything else. How about making two sections, one for punk, and one for alternative rock, in doing so we could expand the punk section (as I feel it is rather lacking, especially regarding hardcore punk) and we could have a dedicated alternative rock section. I don't mean to put down your contribution towards this section, however I do have a reasonable amount of experience relating to Japanese modern culture, I have been living in Japan for the last 6 years. I really would like to expand this article, and instead of reverting eachother and disagreeing, with a little discussion and compromise, perhaps we could improve it. get back to me. thanks Sennen goroshi 14:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You will find the discussion on the article's talk page. To recap: The individual pages for the other groups list them as "punk". It so happens I have listened to a lot of Shonen Knife and it does not sound like punk to me. The only exception might be their cover of "Cherry Bomb" which is a little harder than most alternative I've heard. Both of us, however, are faced with the consistency of the other pages. Please do not think of the reverts as mere reverts. Although I used the revert button, it was my objective not to see the Blue Hearts deleted. Although I live in Toronto, I can easily surround myself with Japanese popular entertainment and have been doing so for over 11 years. That said, let me stress one more time, that I am so far only protecting the inclusion of the Blue Hearts as a punk band. By the way, did you ever notice that Shonen Knife's cover of the Carpenter's "Top of The World" appeared as an uncredited/unavailable part of the Tokyo Drift soundtrack? Jok2000 14:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 99942 Apophis edit

You were a bit hasty with the revert. I presume you thought it was not for real?Trishm (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Even more hasty with the second revert. I am currently looking at the AFP reports, as well as articles in the original German. Please do not revert a third time before there is a chance to improve the original entry.Trishm (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As you have no doubt noticed, I am but one of dozens of editors noting that the boy's calculation has been refuted by NASA on the grounds it does not take into consideration the angle of approach, and as such is non-notable fluff. Jok2000 (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, there have been hundreds of edits since I reverted that bunk, and the end result: That stuff was bunk and I was the first to note it as bunk. Jok2000 (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noosphere Edits

My friend, the "sphere of human thought" includes both consciousness and unsconciousness. For Teilhard, the noosphere is best described as a sort of 'collective consciousness'. That was Teilhard's opinion and considering that much of the collective unconsciousness was developed after the idea of a/the noosphere, it is fair to assume in modern times that it could apply to both and no simply a judgment at face value... but let me know what you think and understand about the topic besides what's merely written on Noosphere at the current moment (until I help to update it with more information to avoid these pitfalls). Thanks! IdealisticRealist (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What I think is that the latest conventional thought on Jung's Collective unconscious is that it is simply "instinct", I cite "A Very Short Introduction to Jung", Oxford University Press, and would suggest that you do not add un-cited new-age re-interpretations to Jung and Collective Unconscious. Jok2000 (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ok, then how about a consensus on UFO?

let's do it this way: if you find me a serious and unbiased source were it's proven that the latest phoenix light are "not clear (let's say it like this...)" then i'm willing to agree that we leave it out. and don't forget: no blogs...i won't use blogs either.

otherwise i suggest we take the current news link provided and leave it in the article. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 22:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, i did my part on providing even more news sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352156,00.html

or here: http://news.ktar.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=814826

now it's up to you to at least find similar credible and unbiased sources who say it's "nonsense" so we can exclude it. let us both work towards a consensus. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 08:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your ktar link is good enough for a start. It does not call the lights UFOs. Jok2000 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

a'right, then i suggest i write a sentence or two into the "modern reports" section and simply call them "red/orange lights". to have two news sources, i also suggest including the fox news link as i couldn't find the word "ufo" in there...but for now i only use the ktar link. if you're also ok with the fox news link i will include it afterwards.

and about our lil'...umm "war"...i suggest we simply forget it and move on. i assume that we're both grown ups and that we know, if we think about it, that such things are useless and childish...on my and your side...we both didn't behave very well. peace? i think so :-)

kind regards SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a point of note to passing readers: a police helicopter pilot who saw the lights said they appeared to be road flares hanging from balloons and a Phoenix resident claims to have created same: [1] Jok2000 (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Logic template

Please do not remove those templates. All of those articles are listed on the template. Each is in fact a philosophical view on logic. Furthermore, although the articles in question may need some development so as to make the relationship clear, eventually they will. However, if you remove them, that will hinder their development. Thank you, Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. You should also know that the point of wikipedia is not to only display one view that prevails, but rather to present all views that have sources (preferably academic sources). All of those views on logic were held at one time or another by respected philosophers of logic. It doesn't matter my opinion of it, and humanism is pretty much irrelevant so I don't know why you brought it up. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I brought up humanism because of Humanism#Knowledge (logic) and the fact you are extending the meaning of the logic template to mean philosophy when in fact logic is a sub-category of philosophy. You have the two completely backwards now, however it seems that you do not notice. Also the subtlety of changing the definition of your own belief system seems also to be lost here somewhere. No matter, logic does not encompass philosophy, philosophy encompasses logic. The template needs to change. I want to take this to WP:rfc as soon as possible. Jok2000 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is just a very rigid view of the priorities in organization. The section is perfectly relevant. Sure philosophy of logic is philosophy. However it certainly is a topic within the purview of a logic template. I would prefer it if you did not advocate to get rid of the section. Thank you. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] discussion about phil of logic section of logic template

I am going to bring the phil of logic section up as a discussion at the talk page of the template. A request for comment has been placed. I invite your contributions. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Philosophers never agree, so rfc is a good thing in this case. Jok2000 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That is why it is better to be inclusive, rather than exclusive. It becomes a big mess otherwise. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] garbage heap of history

It appears as if you are wikistalking me. If you would like to pursue the afd on the well known phrase "garbage heap of history", which you even used yourself (haha), you will need to make a proper link on the template. The article was not created as a joke, or waste of anyone's time. It's obviously a notable phrase. Be well, 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Pontiff Greg Bard

I am watching your page during the hopefully short period of time we will be discussing the logic templates. AfD's should not be taken personally, neither should watching one's own conversations. This is called paranoia. Jok2000 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Math v Philosophy

You are making the claim on my talk page about what is and is not logic, or what is and is not philosophy. I just thought you should know I've had this discussion about a million times already. You are arriving quite late to that discussion. Suffice it to say, that when logic is taught in the philosophy class, we are told that the same thing is studied in math classes. However, when it is taught in math classes the professor does not mention that, or if he does, it is to give short shrift to the pretenders.

Please don't get the idea that the math department teaches you everything about the subject, and the philosophers only study part of it. Clearly the math people learn some things that we don't learn, and clearly the philosophers also learn something that the math people don't learn. So, no, claiming I understand the part that I have learned isn't arrogance. However, presuming to know everything as you have done in pitying my ignorance, is arrogance. Good luck with that. I hope we can learn from each other (you know: Wikipedia-like.) Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you would have the discussion a million times as you never cite a source, as I have done (on the logic template page). It is not arrogant to provide proper citations, as I have done, and you have not. I pity your efforts to convince people with unsubstantiated (by way of citation) reasoning, this is true, but only because Wikipedia is so strict about it. If I may be so bold, it strikes me that you and your professors and students when you were obtaining your degree in philosophy engaged in big time WP:OR and you are repeating it here, with the feeling that you are using those discussions as citations. Unfortunately we are not able to travel back in time to the halls of your University to hear you and your colleagues blaspheme the definition of "reasoning" and "logic". Jok2000 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you have some kind of ax to grind. For somethings like the finer points of a descriptive interpretation I will run and sweat to get the sources. That Platonism was the first philosophical school dealing with logic is known by pretty much every first year student. I'm not much for jumping to get sources every time someone like you comes a long. Eventually these things get straightened out just fine.
I am surprised that you are waving "reasoning" in my face as if to say see, nothing to do with logic at all. If it has to do with reasoning, thats the field of logic.
Why don't you ask User:Philogo his opinion. We don't always agree, so if you two agree on the content of that section, I will pretty much go along with it. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As the above added text contains no citable reference, the discussion ends and I have taken your user page off my watch list, for your comfort. I will accept your statement about first year students, as it must be true somewhere, however I did not take any philosophy courses until my 3rd year. I would also, before you go, like to thank you for pointing out that Symbolic logic has been renamed to Mathematical logic, as when I took it in 1985 it did seem like a misnomer to me then, but since I still remember it all, I haven't had a need to play the new-textbook-edition-every-year game with the universities for a couple of decades. Jok2000 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The End of Logical Positivism

I noticed that you've removed ", but logical positivism lived on.". I think it would be good change this this to , "but logical positivism lived on until the 60s." or somewhere along that line. I am suggesting this for two reasons.
1. Quine wrote Two Dogmas of Empiricism in 1951.
2. Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962.
Philosophers of science generally agree that these two works have done by Quine and Kuhn damaged logical positivism the most. Quine first showed that analytic-synthetic distinction is both meaningless and impossible. This triggered the decline of logical positivism. And the rise of Kuhnian historicism showed rational reconstruction of science is extremely difficult.
Let me know what you think about my suggestion. Maybe, we could also add my reasoning stated above to justify the timing. Stampit (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but how about removing the metaphor "lived"? This is because the original metaphor "but l.p. lived on" suggested it took a beating but survived it forever. This is the opposite meaning to what is written in Okasa's "A Very Short Introduction to the Philosophy of Science", leaving the reader with the impression that strong arguments were made, and eventually support faded away (this is counter to the meaning of "live") Jok2000 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern, and I agree that word is misleading. What do you suggest? Stampit (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I could look up how Okasa described the denouement in his book, but I thought you'd like to take a crack it with google? ...because even when I first read about it years ago, it seemed like a viable system, until I studied it in more detail Jok2000 (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] philosophy of logic main article

Hullo: I replied to you at User talk:Philogo:philosophy of logic main article--Philogo 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] peer review

Interesting paper you mention. Could you email me a copy from my user page? DGG (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)