Content deleted Content added
m Fix unsigned comment. |
72.254.20.137 (talk) South Jordan, Utah? |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
* '''Delete'''. It is neither peer reviewed research nor are the references to published research shown to be relevant (they are POV actually). Instead, ''direct logic'' evolves while we watch. -- [[User:Zickzack|ZZ]] 09:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
* '''Delete'''. It is neither peer reviewed research nor are the references to published research shown to be relevant (they are POV actually). Instead, ''direct logic'' evolves while we watch. -- [[User:Zickzack|ZZ]] 09:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
* '''Keep''' The Wikipedia article is about the |
* '''Keep''' The Wikipedia article is about the views of the publication referenced in the article. If other people have different views they should put them in the article. {{unsigned|72.254.18.172}} |
||
:* More sock puppetry from South Jordan, Utah, repeating the claim that there was a publication and ignoring that it did not receive a peer review. -- [[User:Zickzack|ZZ]] 12:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
:* More sock puppetry from South Jordan, Utah, repeating the claim that there was a publication and ignoring that it did not receive a peer review. -- [[User:Zickzack|ZZ]] 12:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
::South Jordan, Utah? I am at a hotspot in San Francisco talking with friends about this. How do you know that the publication was not peer reviewed? |
Revision as of 17:56, 9 June 2006
Direct logic
- This page makes dubious claims. It changes in response to talk page remarks, but sources are not provided, or provided sources are irrelevant -- certainly nothing in a mathematical publication. I'm afraid it fails the smell test. -Dan (User:Fool) 15:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)~
- The smell test? Naconkantari 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Alright. Let's say, smells like non-notable, possibly original, research. -Dan 15:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- If I may amend my nomination to add a buzzword, let me add non-verifiable research, which is really what smells. -Dan 20:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Alright. Let's say, smells like non-notable, possibly original, research. -Dan 15:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Smells like original research. (Non-notable is difficult to apply to fringe theories.) As Anonymouser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is almost certainly CarlHewitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a violation of his RfA. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep There's a long, sad story here. The main author of the article, Anonymouser (talk · contribs), is believed to be a sockpuppet of Carl Hewitt, who is referenced in the article. Hewitt was a major figure in the logic-based end of artificial intelligence back in the 1970s. This is widely believed to be a dead end today, and Hewitt is one of the few people still trying to make it work. The general idea here is to develop "weak logics" which have more tolerance for ambiguity and contradiction than classic logic, which is very brittle. John McCarthy developed "circumscription" as an early effort in this direction, and there have been other variations on this theme. None of them are really all that useful. Bayesian inference seems to work better. What we're seeing here is something that, for now, seems to be a theoretical dead end. That happens in mathematics. The article does cite published papers, though, and I'm inclined to keep it in. --John Nagle 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The author cites his own "published" (but not generally available) papers. Even if they are generally available papers in a peer-reviewed journal, they still violate his RfA, as noted above. See Hewitt (2006a) and (2006b) — both seem to be invited, but not peer-reviewed, papers. As (2006a) is referenced in the lead, the entire article is suspect. (One of my published papers was invited at a conference, but not peer-reviewed — I know better than to attempt to reference it in Wikipedia.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually both papers seem to have been peer reviewed although the COIN paper more rigorously than the AAAI paper. Also invited papers count as publications for the purposes of reference for the Wikipedia. In science there are many examples of invited papers that published important results. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.254.25.74 (talk •
contribs) 21:15, June 8, 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This user's contributions have been limited to this AFD and the article under discussion. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are many examples of invited papers which are not peer-reviewed. We shouldn't accept those until they are at least commmented on in a peer-reviewed paper, even if important. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Peer review is especially important where dubious claims are involved. -Dan 02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The grounds originally cited for deletion are not valid. The article reports on a publication by a noted academic. The results of the publication have been presented in seminars at Stanford and SRI. So it is difficult to argue that it is not notable. The field is divided into camps that radically disagree with each other. Consequently the ultimate value of the research is a matter of great controversy. However, the problem addressed in the motivation section of the article is of the highest importance in computer science: What is the field going to do about the pervasive contradictions among documentation and code of large software systems (think Windows!)? Also there do not appear to be any glaring errors in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.59.254 (talk • contribs)
- As in my comment above, Carl Hewitt may be "a noted academic", but papers (2006a) and (2006b) are from conference proceedings, in which it appears he was invited, but the papers were not peer-reviewed. (And it's still fringe mathematics, rather than dead-end mathematics, even with the 20-year history. CS people, when trying to do mathematics, sometimes get confused.) If anything related to those papers is excised from the article, and there's still something there, I'd make it a reluctant keep. Those papers are invalid as primary or secondary sources, except as an indication of the opinions of the author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment To add to that, as I stated on the article's talk page, (2006b) is not even a relevant reference. As for the possibility raised about the editor's identity, well, I suppose it explains where the editor gets his info from... but then it means Hewitt has taken to refer to himself in the third person! Not likely is it? -Dan 19:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Could the IP 72.254.59.254 (from South Jordan, Utah) please present evidence that it is not another sock puppet ofCarl Hewitt? Its edits on Talk:Direct logic do give that impression.-- ZZ 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Paraconsistent logics generally are among those "sciences" (like fuzzy "logic") which I consider to be scams. We should not dignify any of them with coverage which takes them seriously, i.e. at face value. If we mention them at all, it should be to expose them as scams. JRSpriggs 06:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It is neither peer reviewed research nor are the references to published research shown to be relevant (they are POV actually). Instead, direct logic evolves while we watch. -- ZZ 09:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The Wikipedia article is about the views of the publication referenced in the article. If other people have different views they should put them in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.18.172 (talk • contribs)
- More sock puppetry from South Jordan, Utah, repeating the claim that there was a publication and ignoring that it did not receive a peer review. -- ZZ 12:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- South Jordan, Utah? I am at a hotspot in San Francisco talking with friends about this. How do you know that the publication was not peer reviewed?