The result was delete. If weight of words in support could save an article, there would be no doubt about the result here; but these debates are determined by the arguments in terms of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and among the contributors who cited them correctly there is a clear consensus that this is a neologism which has not (yet) achieved the notability required for an article. JohnCD ( talk) 21:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Neologism promoted by a not notable single author, and not used in any other source. Guyonthesubway ( talk) 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, seek comments from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another. |
Denis Baggi, Research Scientist in Computer Generated Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlouismusic ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC) — Dlouismusic ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Giovanni Messori, Social Researcher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.41.82 ( talk) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — 79.26.41.82 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Julian Locke, Ph.D. student in Methodology of the Social Sciences, Florence, Italy.
Massimo Negrotti - University of Urbino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.63.251 ( talk) 12:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC) — 151.51.63.251 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
P.S. Today's Google statstics are:
< artificial +negrotti > 3080 < "theory of the artificial" +negrotti > 6520 < naturoid > 10100 < naturoid +negrotti > 167 < naturoids > 5820 < naturoids +negrotti > 2350. This seems to me quite consistent with the above remarks.
1. Dear Angryapathy (and others), I take note that you are not interested in my theory. Nevertheless, just because you do not resist to the temptation to ask “what is "artificial" but not a naturoid?”, I do not resist to the temptation to answer one more time your question, even because maybe it could be interesting for other readers. Artificial means something man-made or not-natural. Therefore, a milling or a cathode tube are artificial objects, because they exploit our knowledge on nature but have nothing to emulate in it, while an art. kidney or an art. rock are naturoids because they are art. objects that try to emulate something happening in nature. This is why, all naturoids are artificial objects but not all artificial objects are naturoids. The theory, starting from this dichotomy, tries to explain and to predict the general constraints and power that will limit and transfigure the natural instances when they become naturoids independently from the field they are designed and realized.
2. I’m sure that your role isn’t that, very impractical, of going “...through every published article...”. Furthermore, maybe that several scholars and researchers are not interested to circulate their theories or hypotheses before they have passed some threshold of notability. If I decided to accept the proposal of a friend of mine to circulate my theory through WP is only because, due to its general nature, I hoped to get some feedbacks from people coming from different fields. In this sense the ‘visibility’ you refer really could be, and has already been, very useful for my research, but, in the same time, also for some reader and surely not for improving the royalties coming from my books. However, at this regard, let me repeat that I wouldn’t insist in the discussion for preserving the article if I were conscious that it is still at the stage of a vague idea, never presented or, even worse, rejected as inconsistent by all referees or publishers. In the end, our discussion concerns the amount (your ‘threshold’) of shared relevance and not its professionally established existence.
3. You are right saying “...then take your discussions to academics”. This is what I do since 20 years, though in the limits of my resources, of course. The fact that nobody – but this is not quite true – has written a book or a paper for defending, destroying or discussing the theory doesn’t imply that it doesn’t exist as a public fact in a lot of ‘places’. If someone discovers a copy of a book of the past centuries reporting some geological or anthropological theory without being quoted by any coeval school of thought, WP wouldn’t be interested in it as a fact? Therefore, the point is: is WP interested in collecting what researchers do or only to what scientific communities (or, worse, mass media audience) place at the centre of some wide controversy or of some wide accepted paradigm? In the next 12 months a very important journal and two of the most worldwide important publishers will publish new papers of mine, but I’m sure that this fact will not modify my notability (wikipedianly speaking) since my theory doesn’t consist of a traditional scientific discovery (or of something provoking and, therefore, appealing for the mass media), but, more simply, propose a new methodological way to look at old things in the hope that new properties or regularities could become visible. Among the many scholars I has been and am in touch, let me report on two who criticized my theory during my lectures or meetings in the late eighties: John Searle from Berkeley and Douglas Hofstaedter from Indiana Uni. According to the former, the theory was too wide since, according to it, a diesel engine should be defined as artificial as compared to an Otto cycle engine; more interestingly, according to the latter – you will agree with him, probably – the concept of artificial (now ‘naturoid’) applies indifferently to all man-made objects, from an artificial heart to the Bay Bridge. These viewpoints are quite legitimate, of course, but being not able to accept the idea of different teleologies embedded in the two classes of objects is, to me, very improvident. You refer to S. Hawking, a very special person that, in my opinion, shouldn’t deserve to be implied in our discussion for deleting a theory... Nevertheless, I’m sure that he will guess immediately the difference which the theory starts from and, perhaps, its possible relevance in setting up a general conceptual frame for designers.
My conclusion. From our discussion I understand that
1_ the position of WPRules-interpreters is that of people strictly linked to a set of rules; 2_ the rules are consistent with WP final aim, that is that of 3_ accepting articles that deal with all what has happened and happens in the world provided it is already known. 4_ Such policy implies that WP will report even on well known theories of any sort – pranotherapy or magic included (by the way, I would be curious to know what you could have said having to discuss articles on this matter) but 5_ imposing to the WPRules-interpreters a great caution in accepting articles on subjects that claim to be rationally established but are not yet widely taken into account, on the basis of a fuzzy threshold of notability.
Being a regular, though cautious in turn, user of WP, I had different perception of it having read, some years ago, its noble mission statements. Thanks anyway to you, for having spent time in discussing the theme, and to the many visitors who have spent their own in reading the article and writing to me.
I have nothing to add, provided you do not have other questions to ask. Best luck.
Massimo Negrotti – University of Urbino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.33.9 ( talk) 22:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Nevertheless, in an ever-more-heated and ultimately vacuous tirade, bolstered by one spurious excuse after another, he appears to be picking on the little guy just because he can. Presumably, Angryapathy is but one of an army (a crusade, if you will) of eager expurgators. I just hope that he is not typical of the breed, and that others take a more measured approach.
For my part, I have spent many happy hours editing poorly written Wiki pages (a thankless and time-consuming task that has now become rather more occasional), and I can say that I've come across many entries, both mainstream and of minority interest, that have little or no encyclopaedic merit. Even some of the entries covering traditional encyclopaedic subjects are awash with personal opinion, partiality and plagiarism, all cobbled together with appalling grammar, spelling and (mis-)use of punctuation (and some of these entries cannot even be edited).
That's not altogether surprising in an encyclopaedia written and updated by its own users, and I can well understand why attempts are being made to clean things up a bit. But why start with the questionable issue of notability, when there are far more urgent concerns to deal with? – such as basic grammar and spelling, for instance.
My own intervention amounts to correcting grammar, spelling, punctuation, formatting, and some logical inconsistencies; but I can't correct basic factual content without finding reliable alternative sources, which are not always freely available (and I mean gratis).
Although I have fairly wide-ranging tastes, I have happened upon many an entry that is of absolutely no interest to me; but I should never wish to delete any entry just because it is of no use to me (or, indeed, to 99.9999% of WP users). The inclusion of minority-interest topics (even personally promoted ones), in what has surely become the largest and most eclectic encyclopaedia yet produced by mankind, seems unproblematic at worst and positively desirable at best. Indeed, I would go further, and say that WP's one and only real strength, apart from being free, is its (till recently, at least) ultra-eclecticism.
WP has been referred to, only half-jokingly, as "the world's favourite semi-trusted encyclopaedia", and I can't think of a more apt summing-up. A radical shake-up is certainly needed if it is to gain any real credibility; but why pick on individual articles as would-be victims of a great purge? A quick Google search brings up about 47,000 articles now living in the shadow of the gallows, while millions of others go unmolested, notwithstanding their patent lack of professionalism and authoritativeness.
Turning briefly to the entry in question, I would suggest that an article discussing the term (and its accompanying concepts) in any journal that in turn merits its own WP entry amounts, already, to sufficient notability, irrespective of any further diffusion or lack thereof. Or should the journal Nature Materials also lose its WP entry, for the crime of having included two articles discussing a term that has not been ratified by Angryapathy and his fellow-Bowdlerizers?
One last point: for someone who claims to be so talented at correcting mistakes, Angryapathy seems less than meticulous in spotting his own. For instance, the plural of bacillus, as any biologist should know, is bacilli, and therefore "Alicyclobacillus are of special interest" is catachrestic. Moreover, well-written and well-sourced are correctly hyphenated when they precede the nouns they qualify, but should not be hyphenated when following the noun. A well-written book is well written (or written well). Also, editing has only one t.
Finally, that which is so readily perceived as "vandalism" is often just the result of unfamiliarity, on the part of a would-be contributor, with the seemingly endless list of rules governing the editing of pages. I wish those in the know would just correct the resulting errors without making accusations of malice. We cannot all be Wiki-experts, and we cannot all be expected to know the minutiae of the correct procedures for every type of intervention. Some of us have other things to do.
Julian Locke, University of Florence (The views expressed here are entirely my own, and do not represent, in any way, those of any other person, organization or institution.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.0.120 ( talk) 15:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Changed to
Fumihiko Satofuka,Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology
It should be enough to read carefully the 'Impact and applications' section for understanding that the therm and the theory of artificial (now of naturoids) have been used, quoted and discussed in many occasions. This is not to maintain that my own theory is a universally known one, but only to defend the idea that a good, general encyclopedia shouldn't neglect theories at this stage of development.
P.S. My decision to give a proper name to a class of empirical facts" has a precise name in turn, within the scientific methodology: definition. Best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.167.90 ( talk) 17:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Nissan, E. (2000). Culture-bound Technological Solutions: an Artificial-theoretic Insight. In The Culture of the Artificial, special issue of AI & Society, Vol. 14, No. 3/4, pp. 411–439, 2000. Nissan, E. (2008a). Chance vs. Causality, and a Taxonomy of Explanations. Yearbook of the Artificial, Vol. 5 (2008), pp. 195–258. Basel, Switzerland, & New York: Peter Lang. Nissan, E. (2008b). Ghastly Representations of the Denominational Other in Folklore, II: Thomas Nast’s Crocodiles in The American River Ganges (New York, 1871). La Ricerca Folklorica, 57 (2008), pp. 148–154. E. Nissan, London —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.107.147 ( talk) 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC) — 93.48.107.147 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Use of the term The quotation by P. Ball is important, but in the 'Impact...' section there are many other examples of usage of the term OR to the theory. Let me collect some examples below (only non-Italian). The term naturoid appears only in some of them because the early formulation was 'theory of the artificial' (as it is clearly said in the introductory section of the article). Nevertheless, if a quotation refers to Negrotti's work on technological reproductions of 'natural objects or processes' clearly it refers to naturoids.
R. Harle, Leonardo, (Oct. 2003) “'Negrotti has succeeded in outlining a basic theory of artificiality which he methodically and systematically expands throughout the book'
S. M. Ali, ‘The Nature of The Artificial: Augmenting Negrottian Artificiality with HeideggerianWhiteheadian Naturality’, Yearbook of the Artificial, Peter Lang, 2002. “Recently, Negrotti [1] has developed a sophisticated mimetic theory of the artificial grounded in three notions - observation, exemplar, and essential performance - that attempts to articulate the former.”
M. Morris, Cornell Uni (during a workshop) http://aap.cornell.edu/arch/news/newsitem.cfm?customel_datapageid_2892=231678 "Morris urged the panelists to define the Reef in a critical context beginning with definitions for a model versus a mock-up and offering the term naturoid as something crafted to imitate a natural object or process. Panelists discussed the project’s role as a pavilion representing a bundle of contemporary architectural interests including more traditional notions of craft."
Robotic Librarian, http://mechanicrobotic.wordpress.com/2007/06/21/all-your-automata-are-belong-to-us/ “As Massimo Negrotti hypothesizes in his 2001 paper Designing the Artificial: An Interdisciplinary Study, “as a matter of fact, since the dawn of civilization, man shows a great, twofold constructive ambition: one, the Prometheus syndrome, aims at inventing objects and machines able to dominate the nature grasping its laws and adapting itself to them; the other, in turn, the Icarus syndrome, aims at reproducing natural objects or processes through alternate strategies,’ as compared to those nature follows.”
Daniel Mittelholtz, Metacognitive Cybernetics: The Chess Master is No Longer Human! Univ of Saskatchewan, http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/Mittelholtz/MC.pdf “Massimo Negrotti has stated that there is an urgency in defining theories in this field. “The need for a theory comes both from scientific and from practical interests. According to the former we have to understand the artificial in order to discriminate it from the purely technological activity and try to understand also their different anthropological roots and intellectual motivations. According to the latter, we have to understand the different requirements needed for the use of conventional machines as compared to the 'use' of artificial devices. The intensity of today's technology, both artificial and conventional, makes such theoretical work legitimate both on technical grounds and also because of its urgency socially and culturally.” (Negrotti, 1993).
Gregor Schiemann, Nanotechnology and Nature On Two Criteria for Understanding Their Relationship HYLE--International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 11, No.1 (2005), pp. 77-96. “"Nanotechnology […] can be oriented either to reproduce natural things or processes, exhibiting different features, or to produce new objects or materials" (Negrotti 2002, p. 4).”
Gesine Lenore Schiewer: Zur Diskussion des Künstlichen in KI-Forschung und Ästhetik, Conference, Kassel, 2000 „Massimo Negrotti muß noch 1991 darauf hinweisen, daß außer Simons Ansatz aus dem Jahr 1969 kein wesentlicher Versuch unternommen wurde, den Begriff des Künstlichen als solches zu klären (Negrotti 1991, Preface). Er knüpft hier mit verschiedenen Publikationen, zuletzt Negrotti 1999, an. Negrotti bindet seine Überlegungen u.a. an einen "funktionalen Dualismus"
R. Capurro, ‘Ethics and robotics’,2009, IOS Press,Amsterdam “There is a tension between technoid and naturoid artificial products [Negrotti 1995, 1999, 2002]. The concept of artificiality itself is related to something produced by nature and imitated by man. Creating something similar but not identical to a natural product points to the fact that anything to be qualified as artificial should make a difference with regard the natural or the “original” (Negrotti).” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.178.199 ( talk) 13:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I seem to be getting lost with some of the sources provided. It seems that some of the Italian IP's provide sources which do not mention Naturoid. So are we debating the notability of the term, "Naturoid", or, "The Theory of the Artificial", or Negrotti's work as a whole, or Negrotti's book? Many people are providing sources here like this is an academic essay. "This article talks about the artificial, which is central to the concept of Naturoid." See, that doesn't work on WP per WP:SYN and WP:OR. Unless the source mentions the term, "Naturoid" (not the artificial, and not Negrotti himself), the sources provided are moot and don't apply to this discussion here on Wikipedia. Angryapathy ( talk) 15:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
More quotations (almost in Italian)
C. Beardon, ‘Computers, postmodernism and the culture of the artificial’ AI&Society, 8, 1994.”The phrase "the artificial" is being used increasingly to denote a new aspect or even a new form of society (e.g. Negrotti, 1991; Berleur, 1993) and warrants further examination.”. Quotation of Negrotti, M.. (1991) Understanding the artificial: on the future shape of artificial intelligence. Springer-Verlag, London. Ethos-Techne Seminario de Filosofía de la Tecnología, Posgrado UNAM, http://jelinares tecnociencia.blogspot.com/2009_09_13_archive.html “...además de que les puedo enviar de una vez el e-book (muy bueno, en PDF) de Naturoids de Negrotti...” G.O.Longo, ‘Homo technologicus’, Meltemi, 2001, p 79 “La nozione di artificiale (Negrotti, 2000) ha a che fare con la riproduzione verismile e accurata, a vantaggio di chi deve servirsene, di oggetti o fenomeni ‘esistenti in natura’...” then, he reports on the concepts of ‘observation levels’, and ‘essential performance’ (see the article Naturoid) from the book ‘Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi’, Laterza, 2000 A. Ardigò, G. Mazzoli’Le nuove technologie per la promozione umana’, Angeli, Milnao, 1993, quotes Negrotti’s work at pages 20, 183, 234. G. Priulla, ‘Vendere onnipotenza. Metafore pubblicitarie, tecnologie, miti del XXI secolo’ (To sell omnipotence. Advertising metaphors, technologies, myths of the XXI century) quotes Negrotti’s book ‘La terza realtà. Introduzione alla teoria dell’artificiale. Dedalo, Bari, 1997 at pag. 145. T. Barni, Hematology Meeting Reports 2007; 1:(6), at pag. 31 “Massimo Negrotti nel suo libro Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi (Laterza 2000) riporta che l’aggettivo “finto” secondo il Devoto/Oli definisce un prodotto ottenuto artificialmente, per imitazione… Chi definirebbe l’intelligenza artificiale una intelligenza finta? Così anche la definizione di artificiale come qualcosa che si contrappone al naturale, esce ribaltata dalla discussione che stiamo conducendo.
T. De Mauro, Univ. of Rome, http://www.nuovoeutile.it/ita_creativita_linguaggio.htm ‘teorie e pratiche della creatività’ “Massimo Negrotti, studia da molti anni ciò che, in gran parte, determina nelle nostre culture il rischio di eclissi del corpo, l'immenso sviluppo pervasivo dell'artificialità (La terza realtà. Introduzione alla teoria dell'artificiale, Dedalo, Bari 1997)”. S. Pratesi, ‘Verso una bioetica ambientale?’ (Towards an environmental bioethics?) L'artificiale svela l'ontologia del cyborg, mostrandone il carattere naturoide (3), il suo essere parte della realtà naturale ma, contemporaneamente, totalmente altro, sua immagine riprodotta ma tendenzialmente modificata, altro dall'uomo (in quanto prodotto) ma parte dell'uomo (in quanto riproduzione).” “… l'artificiale, oltre una certa soglia di complessità, tende a trasformare o arricchire l'esemplare e le sue prestazioni sia per ragioni intrinseche al suo essere comunque macchina, sia perché approfondisce le caratteristiche isolate dell'esemplare dal contesto” ( M. Negrotti ,Artificiale, cit., p. 38). (3) M. Negrotti , ult. op. cit, p. 12. Di Giuseppe Rotolo,Giuseppe Primiero ‘Dall'artificiale al vivente. Una storia naturale dei concetti’ (From the artificial to the living. A natural history of the concepts), quotations at pages 56, 64 of the book M. Negrotti (ed) Capire l’artificiale, Bollati-Boringhieri, 1990, the published by Springer-verlag, Understanding the artificial, London, 1991. R. Diodato, ‘Estetica del virtuale’, (Aesthetics of the virtual) Bruno Mondadori, 2004, quotation at pag. 63 of the section at pages 48-53 of the Italian book ‘Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi’, Laterza, 2000 M. Pugliara, ‘Il mirabile e l'artificio: creature animate e semoventi nel mito e nella tecnica degli antichi’ (The admirable and the artifice: animated creatures in the myth and the technology of antiquity) quotations at pages XXVIII, 3,if the Book ‘Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi’, Laterza, 2000 V. Somenzi, Relazione per la LXIII Riunione della Società Italiana per il Progresso delle Scienze, 1995, discusses at page 2-3 Negrotti’s work as reported in the book ‘Artificialia. Clueb, Bologna, 1995. E. Tedeschi, ‘Vita da fan’, Meletmi, 2003, quotation of Negrotti’s book ‘L’osservazione musicale: l’artificiale fra soggetto e oggetto, (The musical observation. The artificial between subject and object) Franco Angeli, Milano, 1996. “...la più antica delle ambizioni umane, che si coniuga presumibilmente col desiderio di immortalità, è stata relegata in una regione culturale caratterizzata dal puro fantastico, e ciò spiega perchè progressivamente, il termine stesso di artificiale abbia assunto una connotazione così largamente negativa, tanto che ancora oggi stesso è sinonimo di ‘non vero’, ‘falso’, ‘mera imitazione’ o di ‘espediente’” from M. Negrotti, Verso una teoria dell'artificiale, Serie Prometheus, Franco Angeli, Milano, 1993.)
Comment In my work, the concept of naturoid overlaps that of the artificial conceived as a reproduction of something natural, and not only as something man-made or, simply, not natural. The reason for having decided to change the early formulation (Theory of the Artificial) in the new one (Theory of Naturoids) is explained in one of my above answers. I approved the article on 'Naturoid' instead on the 'Artificial' right to avoid misunderstandings with current or commen-sense definition of artificial things. I think that the statements present in the introduction of the article makes clear this key point. An article intitled 'Artificial', maybe would have been less adversed? M. Negrotti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.130.96 ( talk) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete Many of the "do not delete" !votes above explain why it should be deleted - in particular, "It is too early to say this term will not be used for this very important phenomenon." wp:neo ErikHaugen ( talk) 19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment Dear Erik, it is not only a question of an 'If...then...else'. The fact that the term is not become a 'must' universally used doesn't mean that it has not yet reached a sufficient notability for Wikipedia. The author of the Do not Delete you refer, apparently knows the term. Anyway, be patient and give a look to the above dozen of quotations. Thanks. Post Scriptum. Some years ago, I gave a lecture at the Catholic University of Santa Clara right on the 'Theory of the Artificial'. You could ask them if there someone uses the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.43.11 ( talk) 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If weight of words in support could save an article, there would be no doubt about the result here; but these debates are determined by the arguments in terms of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and among the contributors who cited them correctly there is a clear consensus that this is a neologism which has not (yet) achieved the notability required for an article. JohnCD ( talk) 21:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Neologism promoted by a not notable single author, and not used in any other source. Guyonthesubway ( talk) 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, seek comments from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another. |
Denis Baggi, Research Scientist in Computer Generated Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlouismusic ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC) — Dlouismusic ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Giovanni Messori, Social Researcher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.41.82 ( talk) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — 79.26.41.82 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Julian Locke, Ph.D. student in Methodology of the Social Sciences, Florence, Italy.
Massimo Negrotti - University of Urbino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.63.251 ( talk) 12:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC) — 151.51.63.251 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
P.S. Today's Google statstics are:
< artificial +negrotti > 3080 < "theory of the artificial" +negrotti > 6520 < naturoid > 10100 < naturoid +negrotti > 167 < naturoids > 5820 < naturoids +negrotti > 2350. This seems to me quite consistent with the above remarks.
1. Dear Angryapathy (and others), I take note that you are not interested in my theory. Nevertheless, just because you do not resist to the temptation to ask “what is "artificial" but not a naturoid?”, I do not resist to the temptation to answer one more time your question, even because maybe it could be interesting for other readers. Artificial means something man-made or not-natural. Therefore, a milling or a cathode tube are artificial objects, because they exploit our knowledge on nature but have nothing to emulate in it, while an art. kidney or an art. rock are naturoids because they are art. objects that try to emulate something happening in nature. This is why, all naturoids are artificial objects but not all artificial objects are naturoids. The theory, starting from this dichotomy, tries to explain and to predict the general constraints and power that will limit and transfigure the natural instances when they become naturoids independently from the field they are designed and realized.
2. I’m sure that your role isn’t that, very impractical, of going “...through every published article...”. Furthermore, maybe that several scholars and researchers are not interested to circulate their theories or hypotheses before they have passed some threshold of notability. If I decided to accept the proposal of a friend of mine to circulate my theory through WP is only because, due to its general nature, I hoped to get some feedbacks from people coming from different fields. In this sense the ‘visibility’ you refer really could be, and has already been, very useful for my research, but, in the same time, also for some reader and surely not for improving the royalties coming from my books. However, at this regard, let me repeat that I wouldn’t insist in the discussion for preserving the article if I were conscious that it is still at the stage of a vague idea, never presented or, even worse, rejected as inconsistent by all referees or publishers. In the end, our discussion concerns the amount (your ‘threshold’) of shared relevance and not its professionally established existence.
3. You are right saying “...then take your discussions to academics”. This is what I do since 20 years, though in the limits of my resources, of course. The fact that nobody – but this is not quite true – has written a book or a paper for defending, destroying or discussing the theory doesn’t imply that it doesn’t exist as a public fact in a lot of ‘places’. If someone discovers a copy of a book of the past centuries reporting some geological or anthropological theory without being quoted by any coeval school of thought, WP wouldn’t be interested in it as a fact? Therefore, the point is: is WP interested in collecting what researchers do or only to what scientific communities (or, worse, mass media audience) place at the centre of some wide controversy or of some wide accepted paradigm? In the next 12 months a very important journal and two of the most worldwide important publishers will publish new papers of mine, but I’m sure that this fact will not modify my notability (wikipedianly speaking) since my theory doesn’t consist of a traditional scientific discovery (or of something provoking and, therefore, appealing for the mass media), but, more simply, propose a new methodological way to look at old things in the hope that new properties or regularities could become visible. Among the many scholars I has been and am in touch, let me report on two who criticized my theory during my lectures or meetings in the late eighties: John Searle from Berkeley and Douglas Hofstaedter from Indiana Uni. According to the former, the theory was too wide since, according to it, a diesel engine should be defined as artificial as compared to an Otto cycle engine; more interestingly, according to the latter – you will agree with him, probably – the concept of artificial (now ‘naturoid’) applies indifferently to all man-made objects, from an artificial heart to the Bay Bridge. These viewpoints are quite legitimate, of course, but being not able to accept the idea of different teleologies embedded in the two classes of objects is, to me, very improvident. You refer to S. Hawking, a very special person that, in my opinion, shouldn’t deserve to be implied in our discussion for deleting a theory... Nevertheless, I’m sure that he will guess immediately the difference which the theory starts from and, perhaps, its possible relevance in setting up a general conceptual frame for designers.
My conclusion. From our discussion I understand that
1_ the position of WPRules-interpreters is that of people strictly linked to a set of rules; 2_ the rules are consistent with WP final aim, that is that of 3_ accepting articles that deal with all what has happened and happens in the world provided it is already known. 4_ Such policy implies that WP will report even on well known theories of any sort – pranotherapy or magic included (by the way, I would be curious to know what you could have said having to discuss articles on this matter) but 5_ imposing to the WPRules-interpreters a great caution in accepting articles on subjects that claim to be rationally established but are not yet widely taken into account, on the basis of a fuzzy threshold of notability.
Being a regular, though cautious in turn, user of WP, I had different perception of it having read, some years ago, its noble mission statements. Thanks anyway to you, for having spent time in discussing the theme, and to the many visitors who have spent their own in reading the article and writing to me.
I have nothing to add, provided you do not have other questions to ask. Best luck.
Massimo Negrotti – University of Urbino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.33.9 ( talk) 22:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Nevertheless, in an ever-more-heated and ultimately vacuous tirade, bolstered by one spurious excuse after another, he appears to be picking on the little guy just because he can. Presumably, Angryapathy is but one of an army (a crusade, if you will) of eager expurgators. I just hope that he is not typical of the breed, and that others take a more measured approach.
For my part, I have spent many happy hours editing poorly written Wiki pages (a thankless and time-consuming task that has now become rather more occasional), and I can say that I've come across many entries, both mainstream and of minority interest, that have little or no encyclopaedic merit. Even some of the entries covering traditional encyclopaedic subjects are awash with personal opinion, partiality and plagiarism, all cobbled together with appalling grammar, spelling and (mis-)use of punctuation (and some of these entries cannot even be edited).
That's not altogether surprising in an encyclopaedia written and updated by its own users, and I can well understand why attempts are being made to clean things up a bit. But why start with the questionable issue of notability, when there are far more urgent concerns to deal with? – such as basic grammar and spelling, for instance.
My own intervention amounts to correcting grammar, spelling, punctuation, formatting, and some logical inconsistencies; but I can't correct basic factual content without finding reliable alternative sources, which are not always freely available (and I mean gratis).
Although I have fairly wide-ranging tastes, I have happened upon many an entry that is of absolutely no interest to me; but I should never wish to delete any entry just because it is of no use to me (or, indeed, to 99.9999% of WP users). The inclusion of minority-interest topics (even personally promoted ones), in what has surely become the largest and most eclectic encyclopaedia yet produced by mankind, seems unproblematic at worst and positively desirable at best. Indeed, I would go further, and say that WP's one and only real strength, apart from being free, is its (till recently, at least) ultra-eclecticism.
WP has been referred to, only half-jokingly, as "the world's favourite semi-trusted encyclopaedia", and I can't think of a more apt summing-up. A radical shake-up is certainly needed if it is to gain any real credibility; but why pick on individual articles as would-be victims of a great purge? A quick Google search brings up about 47,000 articles now living in the shadow of the gallows, while millions of others go unmolested, notwithstanding their patent lack of professionalism and authoritativeness.
Turning briefly to the entry in question, I would suggest that an article discussing the term (and its accompanying concepts) in any journal that in turn merits its own WP entry amounts, already, to sufficient notability, irrespective of any further diffusion or lack thereof. Or should the journal Nature Materials also lose its WP entry, for the crime of having included two articles discussing a term that has not been ratified by Angryapathy and his fellow-Bowdlerizers?
One last point: for someone who claims to be so talented at correcting mistakes, Angryapathy seems less than meticulous in spotting his own. For instance, the plural of bacillus, as any biologist should know, is bacilli, and therefore "Alicyclobacillus are of special interest" is catachrestic. Moreover, well-written and well-sourced are correctly hyphenated when they precede the nouns they qualify, but should not be hyphenated when following the noun. A well-written book is well written (or written well). Also, editing has only one t.
Finally, that which is so readily perceived as "vandalism" is often just the result of unfamiliarity, on the part of a would-be contributor, with the seemingly endless list of rules governing the editing of pages. I wish those in the know would just correct the resulting errors without making accusations of malice. We cannot all be Wiki-experts, and we cannot all be expected to know the minutiae of the correct procedures for every type of intervention. Some of us have other things to do.
Julian Locke, University of Florence (The views expressed here are entirely my own, and do not represent, in any way, those of any other person, organization or institution.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.0.120 ( talk) 15:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Changed to
Fumihiko Satofuka,Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology
It should be enough to read carefully the 'Impact and applications' section for understanding that the therm and the theory of artificial (now of naturoids) have been used, quoted and discussed in many occasions. This is not to maintain that my own theory is a universally known one, but only to defend the idea that a good, general encyclopedia shouldn't neglect theories at this stage of development.
P.S. My decision to give a proper name to a class of empirical facts" has a precise name in turn, within the scientific methodology: definition. Best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.167.90 ( talk) 17:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Nissan, E. (2000). Culture-bound Technological Solutions: an Artificial-theoretic Insight. In The Culture of the Artificial, special issue of AI & Society, Vol. 14, No. 3/4, pp. 411–439, 2000. Nissan, E. (2008a). Chance vs. Causality, and a Taxonomy of Explanations. Yearbook of the Artificial, Vol. 5 (2008), pp. 195–258. Basel, Switzerland, & New York: Peter Lang. Nissan, E. (2008b). Ghastly Representations of the Denominational Other in Folklore, II: Thomas Nast’s Crocodiles in The American River Ganges (New York, 1871). La Ricerca Folklorica, 57 (2008), pp. 148–154. E. Nissan, London —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.107.147 ( talk) 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC) — 93.48.107.147 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Use of the term The quotation by P. Ball is important, but in the 'Impact...' section there are many other examples of usage of the term OR to the theory. Let me collect some examples below (only non-Italian). The term naturoid appears only in some of them because the early formulation was 'theory of the artificial' (as it is clearly said in the introductory section of the article). Nevertheless, if a quotation refers to Negrotti's work on technological reproductions of 'natural objects or processes' clearly it refers to naturoids.
R. Harle, Leonardo, (Oct. 2003) “'Negrotti has succeeded in outlining a basic theory of artificiality which he methodically and systematically expands throughout the book'
S. M. Ali, ‘The Nature of The Artificial: Augmenting Negrottian Artificiality with HeideggerianWhiteheadian Naturality’, Yearbook of the Artificial, Peter Lang, 2002. “Recently, Negrotti [1] has developed a sophisticated mimetic theory of the artificial grounded in three notions - observation, exemplar, and essential performance - that attempts to articulate the former.”
M. Morris, Cornell Uni (during a workshop) http://aap.cornell.edu/arch/news/newsitem.cfm?customel_datapageid_2892=231678 "Morris urged the panelists to define the Reef in a critical context beginning with definitions for a model versus a mock-up and offering the term naturoid as something crafted to imitate a natural object or process. Panelists discussed the project’s role as a pavilion representing a bundle of contemporary architectural interests including more traditional notions of craft."
Robotic Librarian, http://mechanicrobotic.wordpress.com/2007/06/21/all-your-automata-are-belong-to-us/ “As Massimo Negrotti hypothesizes in his 2001 paper Designing the Artificial: An Interdisciplinary Study, “as a matter of fact, since the dawn of civilization, man shows a great, twofold constructive ambition: one, the Prometheus syndrome, aims at inventing objects and machines able to dominate the nature grasping its laws and adapting itself to them; the other, in turn, the Icarus syndrome, aims at reproducing natural objects or processes through alternate strategies,’ as compared to those nature follows.”
Daniel Mittelholtz, Metacognitive Cybernetics: The Chess Master is No Longer Human! Univ of Saskatchewan, http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/Mittelholtz/MC.pdf “Massimo Negrotti has stated that there is an urgency in defining theories in this field. “The need for a theory comes both from scientific and from practical interests. According to the former we have to understand the artificial in order to discriminate it from the purely technological activity and try to understand also their different anthropological roots and intellectual motivations. According to the latter, we have to understand the different requirements needed for the use of conventional machines as compared to the 'use' of artificial devices. The intensity of today's technology, both artificial and conventional, makes such theoretical work legitimate both on technical grounds and also because of its urgency socially and culturally.” (Negrotti, 1993).
Gregor Schiemann, Nanotechnology and Nature On Two Criteria for Understanding Their Relationship HYLE--International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 11, No.1 (2005), pp. 77-96. “"Nanotechnology […] can be oriented either to reproduce natural things or processes, exhibiting different features, or to produce new objects or materials" (Negrotti 2002, p. 4).”
Gesine Lenore Schiewer: Zur Diskussion des Künstlichen in KI-Forschung und Ästhetik, Conference, Kassel, 2000 „Massimo Negrotti muß noch 1991 darauf hinweisen, daß außer Simons Ansatz aus dem Jahr 1969 kein wesentlicher Versuch unternommen wurde, den Begriff des Künstlichen als solches zu klären (Negrotti 1991, Preface). Er knüpft hier mit verschiedenen Publikationen, zuletzt Negrotti 1999, an. Negrotti bindet seine Überlegungen u.a. an einen "funktionalen Dualismus"
R. Capurro, ‘Ethics and robotics’,2009, IOS Press,Amsterdam “There is a tension between technoid and naturoid artificial products [Negrotti 1995, 1999, 2002]. The concept of artificiality itself is related to something produced by nature and imitated by man. Creating something similar but not identical to a natural product points to the fact that anything to be qualified as artificial should make a difference with regard the natural or the “original” (Negrotti).” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.178.199 ( talk) 13:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I seem to be getting lost with some of the sources provided. It seems that some of the Italian IP's provide sources which do not mention Naturoid. So are we debating the notability of the term, "Naturoid", or, "The Theory of the Artificial", or Negrotti's work as a whole, or Negrotti's book? Many people are providing sources here like this is an academic essay. "This article talks about the artificial, which is central to the concept of Naturoid." See, that doesn't work on WP per WP:SYN and WP:OR. Unless the source mentions the term, "Naturoid" (not the artificial, and not Negrotti himself), the sources provided are moot and don't apply to this discussion here on Wikipedia. Angryapathy ( talk) 15:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
More quotations (almost in Italian)
C. Beardon, ‘Computers, postmodernism and the culture of the artificial’ AI&Society, 8, 1994.”The phrase "the artificial" is being used increasingly to denote a new aspect or even a new form of society (e.g. Negrotti, 1991; Berleur, 1993) and warrants further examination.”. Quotation of Negrotti, M.. (1991) Understanding the artificial: on the future shape of artificial intelligence. Springer-Verlag, London. Ethos-Techne Seminario de Filosofía de la Tecnología, Posgrado UNAM, http://jelinares tecnociencia.blogspot.com/2009_09_13_archive.html “...además de que les puedo enviar de una vez el e-book (muy bueno, en PDF) de Naturoids de Negrotti...” G.O.Longo, ‘Homo technologicus’, Meltemi, 2001, p 79 “La nozione di artificiale (Negrotti, 2000) ha a che fare con la riproduzione verismile e accurata, a vantaggio di chi deve servirsene, di oggetti o fenomeni ‘esistenti in natura’...” then, he reports on the concepts of ‘observation levels’, and ‘essential performance’ (see the article Naturoid) from the book ‘Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi’, Laterza, 2000 A. Ardigò, G. Mazzoli’Le nuove technologie per la promozione umana’, Angeli, Milnao, 1993, quotes Negrotti’s work at pages 20, 183, 234. G. Priulla, ‘Vendere onnipotenza. Metafore pubblicitarie, tecnologie, miti del XXI secolo’ (To sell omnipotence. Advertising metaphors, technologies, myths of the XXI century) quotes Negrotti’s book ‘La terza realtà. Introduzione alla teoria dell’artificiale. Dedalo, Bari, 1997 at pag. 145. T. Barni, Hematology Meeting Reports 2007; 1:(6), at pag. 31 “Massimo Negrotti nel suo libro Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi (Laterza 2000) riporta che l’aggettivo “finto” secondo il Devoto/Oli definisce un prodotto ottenuto artificialmente, per imitazione… Chi definirebbe l’intelligenza artificiale una intelligenza finta? Così anche la definizione di artificiale come qualcosa che si contrappone al naturale, esce ribaltata dalla discussione che stiamo conducendo.
T. De Mauro, Univ. of Rome, http://www.nuovoeutile.it/ita_creativita_linguaggio.htm ‘teorie e pratiche della creatività’ “Massimo Negrotti, studia da molti anni ciò che, in gran parte, determina nelle nostre culture il rischio di eclissi del corpo, l'immenso sviluppo pervasivo dell'artificialità (La terza realtà. Introduzione alla teoria dell'artificiale, Dedalo, Bari 1997)”. S. Pratesi, ‘Verso una bioetica ambientale?’ (Towards an environmental bioethics?) L'artificiale svela l'ontologia del cyborg, mostrandone il carattere naturoide (3), il suo essere parte della realtà naturale ma, contemporaneamente, totalmente altro, sua immagine riprodotta ma tendenzialmente modificata, altro dall'uomo (in quanto prodotto) ma parte dell'uomo (in quanto riproduzione).” “… l'artificiale, oltre una certa soglia di complessità, tende a trasformare o arricchire l'esemplare e le sue prestazioni sia per ragioni intrinseche al suo essere comunque macchina, sia perché approfondisce le caratteristiche isolate dell'esemplare dal contesto” ( M. Negrotti ,Artificiale, cit., p. 38). (3) M. Negrotti , ult. op. cit, p. 12. Di Giuseppe Rotolo,Giuseppe Primiero ‘Dall'artificiale al vivente. Una storia naturale dei concetti’ (From the artificial to the living. A natural history of the concepts), quotations at pages 56, 64 of the book M. Negrotti (ed) Capire l’artificiale, Bollati-Boringhieri, 1990, the published by Springer-verlag, Understanding the artificial, London, 1991. R. Diodato, ‘Estetica del virtuale’, (Aesthetics of the virtual) Bruno Mondadori, 2004, quotation at pag. 63 of the section at pages 48-53 of the Italian book ‘Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi’, Laterza, 2000 M. Pugliara, ‘Il mirabile e l'artificio: creature animate e semoventi nel mito e nella tecnica degli antichi’ (The admirable and the artifice: animated creatures in the myth and the technology of antiquity) quotations at pages XXVIII, 3,if the Book ‘Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi’, Laterza, 2000 V. Somenzi, Relazione per la LXIII Riunione della Società Italiana per il Progresso delle Scienze, 1995, discusses at page 2-3 Negrotti’s work as reported in the book ‘Artificialia. Clueb, Bologna, 1995. E. Tedeschi, ‘Vita da fan’, Meletmi, 2003, quotation of Negrotti’s book ‘L’osservazione musicale: l’artificiale fra soggetto e oggetto, (The musical observation. The artificial between subject and object) Franco Angeli, Milano, 1996. “...la più antica delle ambizioni umane, che si coniuga presumibilmente col desiderio di immortalità, è stata relegata in una regione culturale caratterizzata dal puro fantastico, e ciò spiega perchè progressivamente, il termine stesso di artificiale abbia assunto una connotazione così largamente negativa, tanto che ancora oggi stesso è sinonimo di ‘non vero’, ‘falso’, ‘mera imitazione’ o di ‘espediente’” from M. Negrotti, Verso una teoria dell'artificiale, Serie Prometheus, Franco Angeli, Milano, 1993.)
Comment In my work, the concept of naturoid overlaps that of the artificial conceived as a reproduction of something natural, and not only as something man-made or, simply, not natural. The reason for having decided to change the early formulation (Theory of the Artificial) in the new one (Theory of Naturoids) is explained in one of my above answers. I approved the article on 'Naturoid' instead on the 'Artificial' right to avoid misunderstandings with current or commen-sense definition of artificial things. I think that the statements present in the introduction of the article makes clear this key point. An article intitled 'Artificial', maybe would have been less adversed? M. Negrotti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.130.96 ( talk) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete Many of the "do not delete" !votes above explain why it should be deleted - in particular, "It is too early to say this term will not be used for this very important phenomenon." wp:neo ErikHaugen ( talk) 19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment Dear Erik, it is not only a question of an 'If...then...else'. The fact that the term is not become a 'must' universally used doesn't mean that it has not yet reached a sufficient notability for Wikipedia. The author of the Do not Delete you refer, apparently knows the term. Anyway, be patient and give a look to the above dozen of quotations. Thanks. Post Scriptum. Some years ago, I gave a lecture at the Catholic University of Santa Clara right on the 'Theory of the Artificial'. You could ask them if there someone uses the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.43.11 ( talk) 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply