User talk:Logician

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, Logician, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Logician!

Your edits

Thanks for your edits.

The problem with this one is that you made numerous major/massive changes all in one edit. The diff is confusing. Rather than simply reverting it all, I am giving you the chance to clarify your edit. Also, what information, exactly, did you remove in that edit? It's unclear. In addition, please explain why you removed "refers to undeniable truth" in the first paragraph.

Regarding this edit, you removed an example that laypeople can understand and replaced it with something most readers won't understand. I support including both -- for the laypeople and for the more knowledgeable people, but you replaced one with the other. I would re-add what you removed, but I'm giving you the chance to do that.

Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

I cleaned up the article. I didn't remove content that was good, I just cleaned up the stuff that... wasn't (e.g. "institutional logic", which isn't even logic in the sense of this article). I removed "refers to undeniable truth" because that proposition is false. Deductive logic when the argument is valid and sound refers to undeniable truth. Logic as an academic field does not (certainly inductive and abductive arguments are not "undeniable truths"). I can create a page with all removed content if you so desire.
With regards to the second article: I'll add explanations for the laypeople, but the example before with "Red is a colour" and "Obama is a competent president" was confusing and a terrible example of the principle of explosion. In addition to all of this, I'll try to keep edits shorter. Logician (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2018 (EDT)
I'm not disputing that the content you removed was bad, but I want to know what exactly you removed without having to sort through that confusing diff. Also, do you think a layman could read the logic article and have a pretty good grasp of the topic? It's good when CP appeals to both groups at the same time.
As for the Principle of explosion, thanks for the layman explanation. I will check with others to see if it's understandable to them. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2018 (EDT)
Here is a list with comments as to why they were removed. Logician (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2018 (EDT)