Talk:Not even wrong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

No examples?[edit]

Articles that have fallacies or pseudoscience usually give examples.CycoMa (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you expecting here? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this article doesn't give any examples where not even wrong arguments have been used.CycoMa (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking why that's important. Examples don't actually add much to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "Faulty Reasoning"[edit]

References to "Faulty Reasoning" should not be included in this article. If an argument or explanation is based on faulty reasoning then it can (at least in principle) be shown to be incorrect; thus it's simply wrong and would not qualify as "not even wrong."

Only extreme speculation is indicated to in the Guardian article referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juicebox87 (talk • contribs) 19:59, September 27, 2021 (UTC)

falsifiability[edit]

falsifiability isn't universally accepted criterion, would even go as far as to say that it's not a dominant one, phrases like "some say" should be added 91.123.188.244 (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I think it’s highly unlikely that Pauli meant “unfalsifiable” in reference to a paper by a young physicist. He was a theoretician and almost certainly meant that the mathematics were garbled. 82.0.239.187 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

blog[edit]

There was some edit warring to remove Peter Woit's blog. Last one said "i'd like some citations that this blog is popular and deserves a due place in an article about this english phrase." Just look at the first citation. It is already in the article. Roger (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the source is an interview with the subject, that's not independent. lettherebedarklight晚安 16:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just google the phrase yourself, and tell me what you find. The big majority of hits relate to Woit and his criticism of string theory. Roger (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know what you're seeing. they're mostly just his blog and listings for his book. lettherebedarklight晚安 02:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what would be the reason for hiding this info? You don't think that Woit should own this phrase? Roger (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLOG --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think that Woit should own this phrase?
of course not! do you? lettherebedarklight晚安 13:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody should own a phrase. I see the article on I'll be back mentions Arnold Schwarzenegger. If Woit gets a lot of google hits, that is a sign that he is relevant enough to mention. Like it or not, he has popularized the phrase. Roger (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTRUTH. It is pointless to argue on Wikipedia that something is true. You need to find a reliable source that says it is.
BTW, that phrase was already well-known before blogs were invented. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hob Gadling here. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for all books and blogs that happen to use a phrase in their title. The phrase was used long before the "String Wars" of the 2000's and remains in use after they receded into the rear-view mirror. Citing Woit to justify including Woit is relying upon a primary source, and Google hits aren't an argument. (Indeed, search engines are getting less useful and more crowded with junk by the day...) XOR'easter (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he has popularized the phrase.
citation? lettherebedarklight晚安 03:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, and about the article on I'll be back mentions Arnold Schwarzenegger... it's literally about his catchphrase. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not just citing Woit. About 95% if the Google hits mention him. Like it or not, the phrase is associated with him. Roger (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you give a citation for that? lettherebedarklight晚安 06:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are not a citable source. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the fun of it: searching for "not even wrong" woit, I get "About 33,900 results". Searching instead for "not even wrong" -woit gives about 207,000 hits. So, even if we did accept raw Google numbers as evidence, they wouldn't make a case for inclusion. But of course that's beside the point, since raw Google numbers aren't evidence. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point. Maybe a couple of other books should be mentioned. Roger (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no! we don't want to mention any book or blog or whatnot unless it's distinctly linked to the phrase! lettherebedarklight晚安 04:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To put it more in Wikipedia terms, we want to avoid passing mention of the phrase. We need something that is specifically about the phrase itself in order to use it as a citation, and it has to otherwise fit WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Not_even_wrong&oldid=1209428220"