Talk:Not even wrong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Is Peter Woit self-promoting?

A large number of anonymous edits both here and at Peter Woit appear to be emanating from an AOL account. (AOL addresses start with 172.188). I just removed a huge amount of linkspam and Peter-Woit-promotion from this article. zowie 00:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail from Peter, indicating that it's not him. Future discussion of Peter, his blog, or his book is directed to the Peter Woit page. :-) zowie 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not OR

"Not Even Wrong" is a well known and oft-used expression in scientific circles. A simple google search will reveal how common it is. See here, for example. okedem 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the definition here is incorrect. Pauli clearly meant an argument that was based on false assumptions, a collection of ignorance, not something that could not be falsified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhalpern (talk • contribs) 14:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not how I've seen it used. okedem 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To know what Pauli was refering to, one have to know which paper he was talking about, which I have not seen anywhere. Besides that, the quote have been used a lot to refere to theories that cannot be falsified. Regarless what Pauli intended, this is how many people understand it today. Peter Woit's book has of cause made this interpretation more popular, regardless of what you otherwise may think of the book, so I think it is right to include the part about about theories that cannot be falsified. Gisles 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unreferenced|section|March 2007

I restored an unreferenced tag to the article. The one reference merely covers the quote. It does not back up the other information in the article. Johntex\talk 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)