Talk:Not even wrong
- Then fun-ize it. Do it! --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 14:07, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
 "Other use"
The argument you present in "other use" is just a restatement of the concept of "vaccuously true". A implies B is vaccuously true if A is false. However, the stated example is more of the form "A is true, A -> B, so B is true" which isn't a case of being vaccuously true, it's just a false conjunction.
Pretty much the universal response when faced with such things:
- 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)
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. 126.96.36.199 (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.
- I don't see how that's even an example at all. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 17:36, 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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's still not clear what you're getting at. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks 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;DRcritical 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: 184.108.40.206 / talk / contribs
- I'm not even sure there is a strict definition, actually... postate 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 CO2The 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)