User talk:Chalst
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives:
- User talk:Chalst/archive-1: To 28 Feb 2005
- User talk:Chalst/archive-2: From 15 Mar 2005 to 28 Jan 2007
Contents |
[edit] List of pubs
As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
Thanks for your message. A prof emailed me saying she was willing to help. I'm up for a bit of work on this, if you're willing.edward (buckner) 09:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome back
Hi Charles. Welcome back ;-) You've been missed. Paul August ☎ 14:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mathematics CotW
Hey Chalst,I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 18:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If you can speak German, let me know I am trying to get the FA de.wiki Cauchy article integrated into our rather weak en.wiki edition
[edit] Invite
 |
I notice you signed up as an early proponent for the creation of WikiProject Logic. Since then, the proposed project has been moved to it's own space and you have been listed as a Charter Member. Thank you for paving the way for the creation of this project. This is an invitation for your continued and perhaps renewed participation and correspondence. Be well. |
Gregbard 05:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Indian mathematics
Throughout the mathematical articles in Wikipedia are assertions that almost all of Western mathematics was anticipated in India. For example, in the logic article:
"While many cultures have employed intricate systems of reasoning and math, logic as an explicit analysis of the methods of reasoning received sustained development originally only in three places: India in the 6th century BC, China in the 5th century BC, and Greece between the 4th century BC and the 1st century BC."
These assertions are seldom referenced. Examination of the evidence shows that scholars disagree about the dates of these discoveries, and that the range of dates suggested by various sources is sometimes more than a thousand years.
I certainly don't want to be Eurocentric, but fighting these battles on a case by case basis is time consuming. I wonder if the mathematics project can help. Rick Norwood 15:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Indian mathematics is excellent. Rick Norwood 14:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First-order logic
Hi, this may seem a bit strange, and I am sure you are quite busy, but can I make a personal request for you to help edit the first order logic page? Just in case you were wandering - no, you don't know me; but I too am concerned with the quality of the wikipedia philosophy and logic articles, and this one, whilst being one of the most important, is (in my opinion) currently one of the worst, or at least the worst written. I am trying to find people who at least to profess to know what they are talking about to help contribute. Unfortunately this is difficult, especially on articles related to philosophy.
Thanks for your time,
Wireless99 17:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome back
I'm not much of a welcoming committee (especially since I haven't been very active for quite a while) but it is nice to see sane people around (oops, does that statement, by implication, violate some policy?) Welcome back. --CSTAR 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Philosophy
I am a postgraduate at the University of St Andrews, currently undergoing my MLitt coursework. My primary interests are in logic, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of language, and analytic philosophy. I hope to do my PhD in some area of logic or philosophy of maths. I am very interested in Wikipedia as a whole, and more recently have added myself to the list of contributors in WikiProject Philosophy (perhaps I will also do others). Your interests seem very similar to mine, and I am keen to know more about you or discuss things with you. Hit up my talk page some time. Heelan Coo 22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Belated response
[edit] Thanks, kudos & a question
Belated thanks for putting my name to WP:WPLOG and kudos for your energetic approach to getting things started. My question: what is the history of the project? It looks like it started as a subproject of philosophy (something I had argued against, likewise the suggestion that it be a subproject of mathematics) and then was turned into, perhaps by you, into an independent project. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 10:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Greetings Charles, Sorry it's been so long in responding. The history is quite a long story (that's why it has been so long in responding. I have been thinking about it.) You must have not logged on for a while at the time it all started. I saw your proposal, and I was intrigued. I was still pretty new to wp, so I puttered around with some things at first. I created the Template:Logic, so as to have an overview navigation tool. I also worked on the Logical connectives and created the Portal:Logic. It was about then that I made the acquaintance of some of the regulars at WP:MATH.
- At some point I created a category for Category:Logic stubs. The creation of it prompted a discussion about the relationship of logic and mathematical logic, etc. I hadn't realized that there was a process to go through to propose new stub types, but the category was allowed to continue. I had always wondered why the Logic project was still in the proposal stage at that point, so I asked what the process was to start one. Well it turns out there isn't one!
- I was only beginning to realize the politics around here at that stage. I was looking at the article on theorem, and was so disappointed at the entirely mathematical treatment of the subject. I learned in the course of those editing discussions how it is around here. Those WP:MATH people basically have a swarm of regulars who are quite hypercritical and narrow at times. They have nothing better to do than babysit articles so it looks the way they want. Ordinarily I would be fully grateful for such interest by legitimate academics, and such intelligent folks. However, the math-centric pov here overwhelms the logic field of articles.
- ...any way... I dutifully set up WP:Logic as an independent project. Things went on as usual for the most part. however, in determining which articles would be in, and which would not we had a problem. And in setting up various details of the project there were problems. The math people wanted to keep their stubs separate. They wanted to keep their "Pages needing attention" separate. They wanted to keep the "Requested articles" separate. They basically made it impossible to have a unified project while I was setting it up that way.
- The issues came to a head over a proposal to have a bot tag all the talk pages of articles in relevant categories with the Logic banner. This would have made hundreds of edits quite simple, and if there were any problems, clean up would still be easier than manual tagging. Well the categories which were proposed to be tagged were advertised as such for over a three weeks without comment or objection. When the bot started tagging, the Math people came out of the woods howling about what is and is not math or logic, etc. It was a mess. We spent the next three months trying to get a set of categories we agreed on.
- It was then that I turned in my frustration to working on WP:PHILO. Wouldn't you know it! The people working in that area are easy going, helpful, nice, decent, etcetera. They are a pleasure to work with! Well, I realized that I could basically say screw the math people. Logic belongs under philosophy. They gave me no grief over organizing it AT ALL.
- I took this opportunity to really develop WP:PHILO and the task force organization that exists there is a result of that effort. It was all in response to putting logic where I thought it belonged in the face of this culture. Now we have the Epistemology task force, the Ethics task force, about 17 others, and most recently the Anarchism task force was created because they wanted to join as well!
- To be clear, attitude is not the only reason things turned out the way they have. Logic really does in my view belong as solidly under philosophy. I have gotten substantial criticism for my Neo-logicistic views here, but nonetheless. For the purposes of organizing an encyclopedia, logical concepts are more general than mathematical ones. We should organize the content from general to specific so as to avoid prejudicing the reader toward certain interpretations. That is exactly what we do in logic as well. See Talk:Theorem.
- Other reasons I decided to organize it this way are A) I see it as a way to counter the math-centric lean of these articles by making them more accessible to the philosophy crowd and B) the trend in Wikiprojects these days is to task-force-ize. This way we have a substantial project's resources helping smaller one's in related subject matter. I hope this move has caused many more philosophical logicians to have access to a greater variety of logic related topics including the mathematical ones. (Whereas those math guys are separatists: they don't want to see any darn philosophy if they can help it -Philistines).
- I recently asked WP:MATH to merely designate the logic task force as a joint task force, but they couldn't see fit do do that apparently. Shortly before I did that, I set up the Wikiproject so that there are two worklists created by the two different banners (Phil/logic) and (Maths/Foundations):
- I realize that it is your wish that the project stand on it's own, and be separate from philosophy (and perhaps math too). This had resulted in duplicate tagging of many articles leading to a clutter on talk pages. However, do not despair! I think there is a way to work it out so that it will be one in the future. We need to tell the script that makes the banner to put particular articles in two rather than one category. One for phil logic, and one for just logic; or one for math logic and one for just logic. This way there will be created a unified list, even if there still are two separate ones. I have not been motivated to change this just yet. Separatism is status quo right now.
- The most recent turn of events for me, was the arrival of Geoffrey Hunter's Metalogic in the mail. I have created Category:Metalogic, and have populated it with several articles that I either created or to which I contributed. The math folks have been having a fit over the whole thing. They see it as some kind of threat to their way of seeing things.
- Anyway, there are more details to the story, but this is a long one already. Thank you for founding wikiproject logic. It has been somewhat frustrating at times for me, but still certainly a positive contribution. I invite your correspondence. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Review help for Anekantavada
I can see that you have a substantial interest and understanding of Philosophy and are a major contributor of this area. Hence I request your assistance to make this article as a featured article. Users, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs), Qmwne235 (talk · contribs) Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) have made a lot of improvements, but I still need more assistance which would be appreciated. Anekantavada is the most important principle of Jain philosophy and I hope it will be the first article on Jainism to qualify as FA. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
