User talk:Patrick Grey Anderson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. Glad you liked the article at tragedy of the commons. Actually, I think it could use some improvement... it doesn't mention game theory at all. Anyway, feel free to make improvements to articles while you browse. That's what Wikipedia is about. Isomorphic 01:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi.  :) I saw your introduction on the new users log. If you ever find an article you think is brilliant, you can nominate it on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Here's a few other useful links for you:

How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you want to see what other users are doing at the moment, have a look at recent changes. This is a good way to find random articles you might be interested on working on, or you can simply enjoy reading what other wikipedians have to say. Every article has a Talk page (like this one) where you can raise questions or suggest a direction for an article to take. When you make edits to a page, it's a very good idea to add a few words to the summary field to let other users know what you just did (anything from typo to rewrote article)!

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! :) fabiform | talk 01:54, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Patrick, welcome! Always good to have a new editor, especially one who likes philosophy. :) Once you get settled, there's a project I've been contemplating a while but have never gotten started on: the article on ancient philosophy is actually very meagre....mostly links, and very little content to explain what characterized it. I don't know enough philosophy to dive in unaided, but should you take an interest in wanting to shape that article, perhaps you could let me know and we can take a shot at collaborating there. In my own experience, the best thing I did as a new editor was to find a major article that needed huge amounts of work, and do that: it helped me focus, and made me feel I was doing something useful (Medieval literature, to my great satisfaction, became a featured article). Maybe taking on something like that would work for you. :) Just a thought: welcome to the Wikipedia, and enjoy your time reading and editing here! Jwrosenzweig 00:45, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Patrick,

I did create a User Page for VC. I don't know whether the etiquette is for me to put stuff in my user page or yours. I do find it odd that I can edit your user page.

> I am actually completely in agreement with your point of view and your arguments.

I am glad to hear this. I am arguing with several people on another board. Some of the stuff I wrote was in connection with that. I wanted to make use of that and added to the Determinism page.

> However, and you will see this as you go along, the entries themselves are supposed to represent a "neutral point of view."

I did read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#What_is_the_neutral_point_of_view?

Perhaps you and I have different goals for this page. My goal is to make sure that the pro-determinism view gets heard. If this is all that is said, I wouldn't have a problem. Obviously, your goals are different. Also, I just want this to be a fairly quick effort. I get the impression that you want to develop this carefully over a long period of time, as a true encyclopedia entry. I am hoping that you can make use of my stuff in some way.

>>>>> It is sometimes hard to balance the presentation of what you believe to be irrefutable evidence with the opposing argument, so feel free to include sections even if they only seem to offer evidence for the deterministic viewpoint. However, they should be written in a "this is what people argue" fashion, and not in a way that makes the article read like a brief in favor of determinism. >>>>

Should we start a What Determinists Think section?

> If you want to write something explicitly pro or anti-determinism, write it on the talk page. However, the debate on the talk page is really supposed to be about the article itself, not the idea it discusses.

I am confused here. Do you want me write it on the Talk page or the article itself? How about bringing my stuff back under a What Determinists Think section?

> The coin toss analogy is correct, I believe, and helpful in explaining to people why the notion of "randomness" is not equivalent to the idea that something can occur for no reason at all.

>>>> As for the "this stage of the article," yes, I believe the article is still too basic to be discussing some of the more elaborate examples. Also, try to avoid citations to current scholarship, because that tends to date an article, especially if the scholarship is later shown to be incorrect. As a rule of thumb, starting an article from a historical, definitional perspective is usually best. Before we get into a very specific part of the determinism debate, it would be helpful to discuss historical figures in the debate, their arguments, the religious history and implications of determinism, William James, Bertrand Russell, David Hume, Kant, etc. >>>>

Clearly your goals are different. I will be glad to work with you.

I have a user page and a user talk page. How do I provide a link to each of these?

VC

Patrick,

> You might think that you and I have different ideas about what an entry should look like, but I think most Wikipedia users would agree that a dispassionate, interesting treatment of the topic is the goal.

I do not disagree. However, my prime interest is to aggressively present the deterministic side. I may be a poor choice to work on this page for that reason.

> My main problem with what you wrote earlier was that it had a sort of urgency to it that made it read more like a letter to the editor than an encyclopedia entry.

Guilty. I am in the middle of a heated discussion with some folks on this topic, on another site.

And, a section of yours that someone else deleted before I could read something like, "Let's not get hung up on..." or something like that.

This is what I wrote in that paragraph:

"Human beings gather information, consider alternatives, make decisions, and act. The popular view is that this is true freedom in action. Let's not get into a discussion of whether this is really true or not but agree that this type of humanlike agency/anthropomorphic action is the only way determinism can be violated and examine what happens in the inanimate world."

Let me think where to go from here.

VC 23:19, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Patrick,

Some quick thoughts.

> Just out of curiosity---where are you having this debate?

The debate is happening at


Please feel free to join this debate. I am dying of loneliness there. This site is populated almost 100% by people from India. Hinduism being right is a solid/unquestionable premise for most of them.

At this site, there are several articles by me for instance,

My Life As a Psychologist


The Camel and the Arab


B.F.Skinner


Is there a God?


VC 11:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pat,

Here is a quote from Malone:

very few critics have understood Skinner’s behaviorism well enough to criticize it competently. We attempt here to present radical behaviorism clearly, showing how its interpretations apply to diverse areas. To this end, we use excerpts from one of Skinner’s writings, hoping to prevent at least some future misguided critiques. We argue that Skinner was correct in criticizing mainstream psychology, which is irretrievably damned by its failure to correct the errors of history. Traditional psychology carries the burden of basic assumptions that agree with folk psychology and, therefore, lend popular appeal to its theories (cf., Baum, 1994). Needless to say, these assumptions also feature primitive ways of casting some important questions. For example, the assumption that “we” are minds “inside” bodies agrees with millennia of popular opinion, but it is neither a necessary nor a wise psychology. Similarly, the facts of sensation and perception do not require that we take in copies of the world around us. Whatever the popular appeal, radical behaviorism does not accept such folk psychology.

VC 13:01, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?

It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup.

- Eric 06:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)