User talk:Taak

Hello

I like the additions to the fallacies list, although I think some organization is necessary -- such as suggested by David H. Fischer's book, Historian's Fallacies. Currently, it is hard to locate a fallacy (or particular fallacies used in certain areas.) I also started an article political argument.. I put some stuff on social choice theory to give it some structure, but that is somewhat questionable. This is related to some of your more recent additions.

CSTAR 18:55, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I don't have a copy of Fischer's book, but I see that there's a copy at my local library, so maybe it would be a good excuse to pick it up next time I go down there (it's been on my Amazon list).

I agree that there could be better ways to organize the list. Maybe there should be both an alphabetical list and a categorized list. I've always liked fallacy files' taxonomy and the table of fallacies is interesting (though the latter would be too opaque to anyone who wasn't already very comfortable with formal logic).

I like the idea of suggesting fallacies that may be relevant to different subjects. For political argument, maybe we could list misleading vividness, slippery slope, perfect solution fallacy, ad hominem, lump of labour fallacy, appeal to emotion, off the top of my head. We could say For fallacies related to a specific subject, see: and list political argument, formal argument, etc.

I also was thinking it would be cool if we could have some sort of standard classification table for each of the fallacy pages like they have on all of the animal species (like, say deer or roundworm), which might list type (informal or formal), parent fallacies, subfallacies, etc.

Taak 22:17, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-- Standard classification table for each fallacy. This would be very useful. Fischer does attempt something like this. CSTAR 20:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, well I'll get that book out soon. We should probably propose/discuss this on Talk:logical fallacy so that anyone else who might be interested can comment. --Taak 17:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the tip on linking to sub-sections! Alanyst 04:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's to undocumented features! --Taak 17:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fallacies

Hello, it's been a while since I've talked about these pages. One of the things that would be worthwhile pointing out are distinctions between:

• Purely logical fallacies (e.g. All males are mortal, Mary is mortal, therefore Mary is a male.)

• Fallacies in some technical specialty (your lump of labor fallacy is a good example from economics) or fallacies in mathematical reasoning

${\frac {a+b}{c+d}}={\frac {a}{c}}+{\frac {b}{d}}$

or fallacies in probabilistic or statistical reasoning.

• Fallacies arising from violations of principles or argumentation. There's a whole fairly recent of argumentation theory which

proposes rules of argumentatitive dialog. These can be regarded in some sense as fairness rules.

---

Talking of Slippery slope, from Kevin Drum:

Texas Senator John Cornyn:

It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right....Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife.

CSTAR 02:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The most basic and frequently-used way that I've seen fallacies split up is between those of formal logic and informal logic.

It makes sense to split them up between different circumstances of use in real life, however, in the interest of making it easier to use. There's also no reason why we could provide several different organizations of them.

Maybe I'll work on some sort of draft for a classification table to put on all of the individual pages, soon (which may require asking on the irc channel for tips on how to do this).

--Taak 22:09, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Did you take a WikiVacation?

I haven't seen your contributions here in quite a while or in DK. I also notice the last date of contribution was dated Nov 3  ;) CSTAR 22:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Dave Barry libertarian?

OK, this is really old, but... Is Dave Barry really a libertarian? I've read everything he's ever written, and I don't particularly get that impression. Do you have a source, or an example, or something? (I don't particularly care, just curious.) --MarkusRTK 18:08, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

• http://www.google.com/search?q=dave+barry+libertarian

Image copyright?

I don't know if you're watching Image talk:Iraq-prewar-antiamerican-cartoon.jpg, but some copyright issues have been raised there... - Mustafaa 14:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

tickerbot

Please read and reply to my comments made at Wikipedia talk:Bots. Thank you! -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Illusion of control

I have a question about some of the text you contributed to the Illusion of control article. I suspect that there is a typo in the sentence: "...it has been shown that people tend to throw harder for high numbers and lower for low numbers." Should that read softer for low numbers? see also Talk:illusion of control. Thanks! --Amoore 22:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Someone else made the change, so unless it's wrong, I don't think your intervention is required. Thanks! --Amoore June 29, 2005 15:30 (UTC)