Talk:Thomas theorem
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the Definition of the situation page were merged into Thomas theorem on 14 January 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Theorem?[edit]
I'm pretty sure that this is not a theorem, since it has not been deductively proven. As it appears, it is a theory. (Lucas(CA) (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC))
- Those damn sociologists misusing real science! 220.253.10.144 (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Principle[edit]
An academic from Birmingham University once mentioned "Thomas's Principle": "what matters is not what is true, but what is perceived to be true". You'll find ample evidence of this in the Wikipediaa discussion pages. Ausseagull (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- How odd that this article refers to the right source for the quote but still credits WI Thomas when it should be Thomas and Thomas (1928). Merton should have asked Dorothy whose line was it... though the Dorothy theorem would make the quote sound like a line from The Wizard of Oz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.156.156 (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
are those "classic examples" really examples of Thomas theorem?[edit]
these certainly are examples of possibly irrational behavior, but do they really pertain to the theorem in question? Perhaps closer to the subject would be irrational prejudices against people based on astrological (in India) or Marxist (in early Soviet Union) beliefs that are validated by general practice and hence have real consequences to people's careers. Then, closer to home, there is the American prejudice against people without college degrees which also has very real consequences to the shape of education and the society at large. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Merger proposal[edit]
I propose to merge Definition of the situation into Thomas theorem. I think that the content in the Definition of the situation article can easily be explained in the context of the Thomas theorum, and both articles are fairly small and can reasonably merge without causing any problems. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
