This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dream argument article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I can't find any mention of "Hutton's Paradox" anywhere noteable, except on WP and mirrors, which were added by Mr. Hutton himself, and on a single blog (which just copied the WP text verbatim). I see two references to some type of publications in the article, one of which is apparently a circular and the other is apparently some type of trade-publication--neither are wiki notable. Further, I've found a discussion of "Hutton's Paradox" (an actual paradox, by a notable Hutton) in Stephen Jay Gould's Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle, pp. 80-91. So in accordance with the WP notability policy ( WP:NOTE), I propose the section on "Hutton's Paradox" be removed from the article. 24.243.3.27 ( talk) 08:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Removed from here and List of Paradoxes. 24.243.3.27 ( talk) 09:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
User:alderbourne, it might be helpful for you to review WP:OR, the wikipedia recommendations regarding insertion of original research. The policy would not even allow Einstein to add original research to his articles. Rather the policy would be that a disinterested second party must find the research in a separately notable publication and add it to wikipedia. It would also be helpful to review WP:POV, which discusses the need to avoid subjectivity in the articles. I hope this has helped some in clearing up why you're meeting such resistance. Wikipedia isn't interested in the truth of its information so much as gathering information which is established by a second party as being notable in a third party source. I run across articles all the time which are essentially collections of garbage, but they are garbage collected from reliable third party sources and as such are include-able. Trilobitealive ( talk) 05:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Toddst1, I see that you have removed the section on Hutton's paradox from this article, and, it would seem, done so solely on your own authority. In justification you cite Wikipedia's policy on "undue weight," adding "one source, [an] essay." Permit me to enlighten you.
Hutton's paradox has given its name to a rock band in Boise, Idaho, inspired a cartoon by Daniel Merlin Goodbrey, provided the title for a play by Libby Leonard, based on a short story by Neil Gaiman, is mentioned in a short story by Sam Vaknin and is discussed in a treatise on epistemology by Anders Jørgensen. It even has its own article, "Парадокс Хаттона," on Traditio. There are, in fact, numerous references to it online.
I am going to restore the section and would be grateful if you would respect my decision.
Alderbourne ( talk) 14:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Have you seen the message I posted to your talk page on 16 July, in which I suggested that you "refer this matter to a Wikipedia administrator rather than remove the section again on your own initiative"?
I am going to restore the section and would be grateful if you would respect my decision.
Eric Bond Hutton ( talk) 14:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a dream inside a dream where the waking state, that the act of being "lucid" is with respect to, is also a just dream. It exists, but I can't find any references on this (other than personal experience) and don't even know what it's called. This also includes the case where the "you" that is in the act of being lucid isn't even you -- that is, where you're dreaming of being someone else having a lucid dream; or where it is you, but in another place or time.
Since there has been on ongoing disagreement regarding the inclusion of Hutton's paradox I am going to request a 3rd opinion. I've updated Eric Bond Hutton's talk page. Lordvolton ( talk) 23:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
A few comments would seem to be in order. Proof that the rock band is named after my paradox can be found here. Sam Vaknin may publish his own work but is a figure of note in the world of psychology. To say, furthermore, that he "seems" to mention my paradox is the height of absurdity: he very clearly mentions it, though admittedly in a work of fiction. The Danish treatise is most definitely a secondary source, as Wikipedia defines the term. By the way, Google Translate is always useful when dealing with some beastly foreign language.
Eric Bond Hutton ( talk) 14:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I believe this passage, the last paragraph of Wittgenstein On Certainty, is relevant:
Although some may not be as certain as W. was in his opinion. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dream argument article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I can't find any mention of "Hutton's Paradox" anywhere noteable, except on WP and mirrors, which were added by Mr. Hutton himself, and on a single blog (which just copied the WP text verbatim). I see two references to some type of publications in the article, one of which is apparently a circular and the other is apparently some type of trade-publication--neither are wiki notable. Further, I've found a discussion of "Hutton's Paradox" (an actual paradox, by a notable Hutton) in Stephen Jay Gould's Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle, pp. 80-91. So in accordance with the WP notability policy ( WP:NOTE), I propose the section on "Hutton's Paradox" be removed from the article. 24.243.3.27 ( talk) 08:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Removed from here and List of Paradoxes. 24.243.3.27 ( talk) 09:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
User:alderbourne, it might be helpful for you to review WP:OR, the wikipedia recommendations regarding insertion of original research. The policy would not even allow Einstein to add original research to his articles. Rather the policy would be that a disinterested second party must find the research in a separately notable publication and add it to wikipedia. It would also be helpful to review WP:POV, which discusses the need to avoid subjectivity in the articles. I hope this has helped some in clearing up why you're meeting such resistance. Wikipedia isn't interested in the truth of its information so much as gathering information which is established by a second party as being notable in a third party source. I run across articles all the time which are essentially collections of garbage, but they are garbage collected from reliable third party sources and as such are include-able. Trilobitealive ( talk) 05:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Toddst1, I see that you have removed the section on Hutton's paradox from this article, and, it would seem, done so solely on your own authority. In justification you cite Wikipedia's policy on "undue weight," adding "one source, [an] essay." Permit me to enlighten you.
Hutton's paradox has given its name to a rock band in Boise, Idaho, inspired a cartoon by Daniel Merlin Goodbrey, provided the title for a play by Libby Leonard, based on a short story by Neil Gaiman, is mentioned in a short story by Sam Vaknin and is discussed in a treatise on epistemology by Anders Jørgensen. It even has its own article, "Парадокс Хаттона," on Traditio. There are, in fact, numerous references to it online.
I am going to restore the section and would be grateful if you would respect my decision.
Alderbourne ( talk) 14:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Have you seen the message I posted to your talk page on 16 July, in which I suggested that you "refer this matter to a Wikipedia administrator rather than remove the section again on your own initiative"?
I am going to restore the section and would be grateful if you would respect my decision.
Eric Bond Hutton ( talk) 14:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a dream inside a dream where the waking state, that the act of being "lucid" is with respect to, is also a just dream. It exists, but I can't find any references on this (other than personal experience) and don't even know what it's called. This also includes the case where the "you" that is in the act of being lucid isn't even you -- that is, where you're dreaming of being someone else having a lucid dream; or where it is you, but in another place or time.
Since there has been on ongoing disagreement regarding the inclusion of Hutton's paradox I am going to request a 3rd opinion. I've updated Eric Bond Hutton's talk page. Lordvolton ( talk) 23:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
A few comments would seem to be in order. Proof that the rock band is named after my paradox can be found here. Sam Vaknin may publish his own work but is a figure of note in the world of psychology. To say, furthermore, that he "seems" to mention my paradox is the height of absurdity: he very clearly mentions it, though admittedly in a work of fiction. The Danish treatise is most definitely a secondary source, as Wikipedia defines the term. By the way, Google Translate is always useful when dealing with some beastly foreign language.
Eric Bond Hutton ( talk) 14:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I believe this passage, the last paragraph of Wittgenstein On Certainty, is relevant:
Although some may not be as certain as W. was in his opinion. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)