Talk:Descriptive interpretation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
Start Class
Mid Importance
 Field:  Foundations, logic, and set theory


Neutrality disputed? It seems like you are just trying to throw the kitchen sink at me without regard to any actual policy or guideline. Perhaps some other charge is appropriate? Getting people upset itself is not a policy violation Philogo. You have to actually justify being upset. So please explain exactly how descriptive interpretation is not neutral.

Couldn't find a good way to link to this section, so I have an image of the page of the source for you to look at:File:Des-int.jpg. I don't think I can keep that there however.

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

re your para 1 above: No citations, POV. re your para 2 above: Sorry cannot read it (too small).

IMHO etc etc It would be better if you wrote in th article "according to Carnap", or "Carnap distinguished" etc. so we could see who was saying what. Article could then add "this was disputed by" who argued that, and so on.

I have the impression that you very much agree with what Carnap said, and perhaps your enthusiasm causes you to present these views as gospel, so to speak. No intention on my part to cause upset: none seriously caused, surely? Aposite quote de jour:

It is all the same to me...whether it is your own opinion or not. It is the argument itself that I wish to probe, though it may turn out that both I who question and you who answer are equally under scrutiny. --Philogo 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to frame up these articles in that way specifying it to Carnap, then that is fine with me. I didn't see the need to do it at all because Carnap is a sufficiently major figure as to consider his terminology canonical. I would prefer it if people see a need to evolve these articles, that they do it with as little drama as possible. It would be worth the effort to try to enlarge that text, perhaps in an image viewer. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It generally helps to attribute words and ideas to thinkers, as I suggested above; I thought you wrote this article so I was suggesting that you might do that; I cannot help since I do not have copies of the relevant texts. --Philogo 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Better now - we can see whose ideas are whose.--Philogo 22:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Descriptive interpretation"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA