This category is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
"I reverted your paradox category additions at
auditory illusion and
optical illusion. Your handle suggests that you have an agenda about paradoxes; I suggest you use the talk pages to say what's up.".
This was posted to my talkpage by
Dicklyon (
talk) 21:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)reply
A few random links in support, except for the first one not in order of importance
Roy Sorensen
on paradoxes, the man is
an authority (
an incomplete bibliography). He talks about visual paradoxes somewhere down the line, I have no timecode, regrettably. You might find it entertaining nonetheless.
Ponder this: Does a paradoctor heal paradoxes afflicted by something, or something afflicted by paradoxes? If that's not to your liking, you might want to read the article on
pararescue. You could also verify that the OED (unabridged edition) does indeed
define a paradoctor as "a doctor who reaches isolated areas by parachute".
Returning to
WP:COI, a quote from
this section might be instructive: "The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles.". Please note that to determine "sound", it is usually a great asset to
"know or care anything about" the topic of the article.
My name and my contribution history do suggest that I have the
WP:SPA nature. I confess. And I quote: "Identifying and interacting with SPAs requires both civility and tact.".
If you're serious about protecting Wikipedia from berserk SPAs, try
this one on for size, maybe that article can finally be brought back on track.
Consider this: If everyone started judging contributors by their usernames rather than their contributions, where would that leave you?
Finally, you might want to read
this guideline again. I'll go now and avail myself to a nice cuppa
DGAF, maybe with a little slice of
Desiderata on the side.
Can I go back to editing after my break?
Paradoctor (
talk) 01:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, please, don't let me interrupt you. But I don't buy the idea that a visual or auditory illusion is conventionally considered to be a paradox. I looked at your search hits; I see I authored one of the ones about auditory paradox; like most of those, I referenced M.R.Schroeder (1986),"Auditory paradox based on fractal waveform." So yes, there's one example of a good guy calling an auditory effect a paradox; and someone else called the same effect an illusion. But that hardly makes your point. I also don't see "visual paradox" anywhere near "illusion", though those terms to do co-occur in a few dozen papers. If Roy Sorensen makes the connection, please do show us where.
Dicklyon (
talk) 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)reply
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
"I reverted your paradox category additions at
auditory illusion and
optical illusion. Your handle suggests that you have an agenda about paradoxes; I suggest you use the talk pages to say what's up.".
This was posted to my talkpage by
Dicklyon (
talk) 21:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)reply
A few random links in support, except for the first one not in order of importance
Roy Sorensen
on paradoxes, the man is
an authority (
an incomplete bibliography). He talks about visual paradoxes somewhere down the line, I have no timecode, regrettably. You might find it entertaining nonetheless.
Ponder this: Does a paradoctor heal paradoxes afflicted by something, or something afflicted by paradoxes? If that's not to your liking, you might want to read the article on
pararescue. You could also verify that the OED (unabridged edition) does indeed
define a paradoctor as "a doctor who reaches isolated areas by parachute".
Returning to
WP:COI, a quote from
this section might be instructive: "The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles.". Please note that to determine "sound", it is usually a great asset to
"know or care anything about" the topic of the article.
My name and my contribution history do suggest that I have the
WP:SPA nature. I confess. And I quote: "Identifying and interacting with SPAs requires both civility and tact.".
If you're serious about protecting Wikipedia from berserk SPAs, try
this one on for size, maybe that article can finally be brought back on track.
Consider this: If everyone started judging contributors by their usernames rather than their contributions, where would that leave you?
Finally, you might want to read
this guideline again. I'll go now and avail myself to a nice cuppa
DGAF, maybe with a little slice of
Desiderata on the side.
Can I go back to editing after my break?
Paradoctor (
talk) 01:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, please, don't let me interrupt you. But I don't buy the idea that a visual or auditory illusion is conventionally considered to be a paradox. I looked at your search hits; I see I authored one of the ones about auditory paradox; like most of those, I referenced M.R.Schroeder (1986),"Auditory paradox based on fractal waveform." So yes, there's one example of a good guy calling an auditory effect a paradox; and someone else called the same effect an illusion. But that hardly makes your point. I also don't see "visual paradox" anywhere near "illusion", though those terms to do co-occur in a few dozen papers. If Roy Sorensen makes the connection, please do show us where.
Dicklyon (
talk) 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)reply