RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $1050Goal: $3000

Talk:Boolean algebra

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Really, we aren't a math site. I don't know how these add to anything we do, other than Math is the Ultimate Rationality. and if that's the case (if we keep math "just cause") i'll shut up. otherwise, we should delete! Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 14:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This one was on the to-do list, and I kinda agree with WfG despite the fact that I started the article. Maybe instead of seeing an article that is questionable, the default question should not be "do we delete this?" but rather "how can this be changed to make it on mission?" Cuz, and true to boolean logic, yes/no questions don't spawn discussion nearly as well as how/why questions. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm personally always for keeping EVERYTHING or anything if you can really RW it. Cause maybe it is important to talk about what "rational" means, and that is a math concept, and bolien logic *might* matter there. (I don't mean might, as in could. i mean it "I have no idea, personally). It's also useful if you are teaching RWians how to google better.  ;-) — Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs
Is it helpful to add to the Bayesian page? The problem is that, while pages like this suffer from abstract missionality problems, they really can be helpful resources. The larger problem is that they'll never be and never should be as comprehensive as the WP article. What to do? Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
My thinking is that there is more that can happen here. The application of boolean logic/boolean algebra is pretty critical to things like Turing tests and science in general, as well as the issues of logic and logical fallacies. The fact that at one point boolean logic was called Carrollian logic is also fairly interesting, given Lewis Carroll's worldviews (I think he's certainly deserving of an article as well, given his contributions to rhetoric and logic, along with his views on drug use and politics, and despite his spirit-of-the-day anti-Semitism). -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC
For me, the problem isn't just "what is it" or "does it say enough", but rather "why are we directing someone here for a reference, rather than to WP which is likely better." And maybe we have a good reason. Maybe it's worth specifically talking about logic in the context of how we make decisions in science vs., say, religion or global warming. This is, again, a more 'overall" big picture question I'm asking. do we want to have reference/resource material, or do we want to send that kind of thing off to "the other wiki" (i think you all say), and just keep articles here that actually carry some point of view. I don't have a good answer, though i'm more include towards the latter. Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 16:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That sort of answers it for me. Explaining boolean logic in the specific context of what we do is helpful, though a somewhat complicated project. The article obviously should link to WP and Wikiversity for a more in depth treatment, but every page we've got on formal logical fallacies could benefit from at least a basic exposition of this analysis. It's been 20 years since I took predicate and sentential logic so I refuse to participate. :-) Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)