Talk:Not even wrong/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Unfun

This "Fun" is epic unfun. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:06, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Then fun-ize it. Do it! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:07, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually, maybe it should be in the mainspace?! ħuman 14:13, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, AK, I don't know string theory : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:14, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd say mainspace. Looks like a good definition.--Bob^{bing up} 14:17, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Visualisation

Pretty much the universal response when faced with such things:

ADK^{...I'll pander your rabbit!} 16:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Black books? --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 16:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Going through a bit of a Dylan Moran binge at the moment and this pretty much reminded me of every reaction I have whenever I go through WIGO:Clog. ADK^{...I'll abandon your brickbat!} 16:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I love that show. Thank you hulu for having it up. Ty^talk 16:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Time-related wrongness

The problem is - definitions of 'not even wrong' can change over time; 25 years ago the idea that the Cold War in Europe and the Soviet Union would end merely 'gurgling down the plughole' would have been seen as not even wrong and 40-50 years ago 'melting pot Venus' would have been seen as 'bizarre science fiction' at best. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really, because we can judge those as unknowns at the time. Those wouldn't have been flat-out wrong assertions that couldn't even be judged as right or wrong, they'd simply be fringe ideas by the evidence of the time. ^theist 18:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to think of examples where perspectives change due to 'events, dear boy, events' and 'absence or presence of information' - but there are cases where the boundary shifts between 'not even wrong' and 'one possibility among several.' Certainly if one was of the 'Third World War'-the Commies/Ruskies are out-military-developmenting us' persuasion at the time (and there were a number of them - the books by General What's-his-name and many others, the down the plughole (and possibly now 'coming up the plughole') scenario would have been seen as not even wrong.

Are there any better examples? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that's even an example at all. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds more like the old science was wrong before trope. ^{d hominem} 21:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My statement was primarily an observation that topics could move between 'plausible (but presently unlikely)' and 'not even wrong': Lamarkism was the former and Lysenkoism the latter; ditto 'invasion of, or by the inhabitants of Venus.'

Shall we say that I was more 'noting the obvious' and 'noting another failed or absent prediction by SF writers' than 'science was wrong before' is also a member of the trope-sphere. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's still not clear what you're getting at. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's my stab at trying to interpret BON's argument:

"Because we have gained more knowledge over the centuries, what seemed right to people when we knew less may be considered a gross lack of topic comprehension today; 'not even wrong' implies obliviousness and stupidity, when in past centuries one need not have been stupid nor oblivious to not have the right equation leading to a right (or wrong) answer. It was just that everybody was wrong at that time and lacked the critical understanding that made one able to be right."

To which I say, yes. We probably shouldn't call an ancient egyptian Not Even Wrong when it came to anatomy; they had not yet discovered the context that would allow them to conclude that the brain and not the heart controls thought; they did not know what a nervous system was, much less that we had one. But if someone today made the same assertion, they would definitely be Not Even Wrong. This page implies (or I sure hope it does) that the person or argument in question was made while information to the contrary was available. Even the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round, if someone tried to seriously argue their proof with wacky things back then, they'd be considered Not Even Wrong, just as surely as Flat Earthers are considered Not Even Wrong today. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 19:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The strict version of the actual fallacy clears things up a bit. Also, remember that scientific knowledge advances by generating new theories that explain both new evidence and old evidence. We're not going to, in 200 years time, spot evidence that the Earth is actually flat making "roundworld theory" Not Even Wrong. Either way, this is covered better by the "science was wrong before" trope and the problem of induction. ^bomination 20:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Strict Definition

This section is very out of place. It contradicts the rest of the article. The rest of the article treats not even wrong as incoherent arguments, as does the common use of "Not even wrong." This section redefines not even wrong as an argument from false premises. Arguments that use false premises are simply unsound or wrong. This alternate definition would make examples like "zebra + glockenspiel = homeopathy" not an example because it does not proceed from false premises. It also contains a blatant logical fallacy in stating that false arguments always lead to false conclusions. Example "Cats are vegetarian. + No mammals are carnivores. = Cats are mammals" False premises and bad reasoning can still result in true conclusions. This section either needs to be reworked to give a strict definition rather than an alternate definition or removed as the article stands without it. ^{— Unsigned, by: 68.95.249.198 / talk / contribs}

I'm not even sure there is a strict definition, actually... ^postate 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

CO₂

The article starts out by defining "not even wrong" as:

Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined.

Since the CO₂ claim, that "More CO₂ is good for the planet because CO₂ is plant food" is easily proven to be false on its own, it does not seem to qualify as "not even wrong". It is just wrong, via a generalization fallacy. Siafu (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Worth revising. Suggestions? ^sshole 16:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My attempts to remove the CO₂ section on these grounds have been repeatedly reverted. It's someone else's turn for suggestions. Siafu (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is "wronger than wrong" worse than "not even wrong"?

"There is one step further than not even wrong and that is wronger than wrong."

I don't get this. Whereas "wronger than wrong" is making an actual statement that is highly incorrect, the point of "not even wrong" is that it's so wrong that it's not actually stating anything. "Wronger than wrong" is a fallacy about comparing fallacies, but "not even wrong" transcends the idea of fallacy in the first place by being neither true nor false. This would lead me to conclude that "wronger than wrong" is lower on the fallacy scale than "not even wrong." Swerve (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an important issue with far-reaching consequences. . . NOT!!! Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Whatevs. Swerve (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, they're not really related. I think this is a throwback to when the article was considerably less complete. ^theist 13:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Have separated them. Complaints to the usual address. ^postate 13:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

conspiracy of silence

What is this? Sorry if this is in th ewrong place to ask. It's just that from the way it sounds, it seems to fit this category ^{— Unsigned, by: 67.5.245.134 / talk} 00:14, 7 April 2015‎

What on earth made you think that conspiracy of silence would fit in this category? If it fits anything, it would be here, or, if due to fear of litigation, here, or possibly here. But it's quite unclear why you actually mention conspiracy of silence here at all, BoN, so please elaborate if you don't want to risk being seen as someone who's just asking questions (and don't forget to sign your posts). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I Googled it

And yes indeed, Derpak's face was straight on the first page of images.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Relation to “mu” concept

Would it be useful to link this to to concept of Mu - where a boolean state isn’t true or false as the question itself isn’t valid? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative) ^{— Unsigned, by: Wih / talk / contribs} 99.230.190.40 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say they're certainly related topics, "mu" seems to mean a question is "not even wrong", whereas "not even wrong" refers to answers. Christopher (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems more of a stretch to me since this seems to be a Western interpretation of mu: Mu (negative) § In popular culture. Bongolian (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No. The phrase has a specific history, tradition, meaning and use. None of these is a "concept," and all of them are alien to any use of or reference to "mu," the Daoist nothingness.

Not Worth A Bronze. Not Even a Tin.

This article is worthless, a genuine threat to RationalWiki's already not great reputation. It should be taken down if it can't be rewritten.

The second sentence, "As a more formal fallacy, it refers to the fine art of generating an ostensibly "correct" conclusion, but from premises known to be wrong or inapplicable" is just one of the reasons why. This sentence is pure bullshit. It is an invention. The author thinks it sounds plausible, which it doesn't, and therefore throws it in, they think to pad the article with greater depth. It doesn't. It is a mere pimple on the face of an already shoddy piece of work.

Ugh!

99.230.190.40 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's a funny way of saying that the central premise of an argument is already wrong. My second problem is, what do you mean about rational wiki's reputation?Doublethink (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)