User talk:Jaredscribe

Welcome! Hello and Welcome to Wikiversity Jaredscribe! You can contact us with questions at the colloquium or me personally when you need help. Please remember to sign and date your finished comments when participating in discussions. The signature icon above the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy, Civility, and the Terms of Use policies while at Wikiversity. To get started, you may Take a guided tour and learn to edit. Visit a (kind of) random project. Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education. Find out about research activities on Wikiversity. Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity. Give feedback about your initial observations. Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium. Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity. You do not need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Dave Braunschweig, thanks. I just asked a question at Wikiversity:Colloquium#Using_Templates_from_Wikipedia.

Regards, Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Are axioms definitions in disguise?

To Are axioms definitions in disguise?, you added the following argument:

• Objection: To call axioms meaningless would not only deny human nature, it would deny reality itself. Axioms are self-evidently true, and so do not require proof. An axiom is αχιωμα, that which is considered worthy, held as w:self-evident by those who possess common sense and are capable of speaking a natural language.

I cannot make any sense of the argument. For a start, the debate does not call axioms meaningless. As another point, the gist of the debate is that axioms are not necessarily self-evidently true. The third sentence is some kind of etymologizing argument, which is therefore invalid.

We can consider a domain different than geometry, modal logic. In Wikipedia: Modal logic, there is a diagram showing different axiomatic modal logics. Which of those modal logic has the axioms self-evident? And since some of the pairs of modal logic are incompatible, if all those axioms are self-evident, the result is a contradiction. (That is a variation on the argument concerning geometries.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The very argument "pro" was the one to which I added an objection, and that argument stated "the axioms do not mean anything and thus have no truth value.", in other words, that they are meaningless. Did you or someone else contribute this? Would you like to revise it to say something else? I maintain my objection that this amounts to a denial of reality and of human intellectual nature.

Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You could have tried to refute my objection in the Wikidebate, which is the place designed for us to discuss this question, but instead you merely reverted my edits [1], [2]. This is an example of the basic fallacy known as w:ad baculum: an appeal to brute force as a substitute for rational argument.

Therefore I had to respond with intelligent force to obvert your reversion. [3]

And now we have a controversy over not merely the geometric question at issue, but not only that, over what constitutes "valid argumentation" in general. As I wrote in the edit summary where I controverted you: If you think that "nonsense, imcomprehensible" is a valid rebuttal to my objection, then add it inline. But erasure and deliberate ignorance are not valid arguments.

And again here: [4]

an inability or unwillingness to understand self-evident truths is not a valid counter-argument, but if you think it is, then add it inline as a rebuttal. The WikiDebate should happen on the page, rather than the edit summaries. I've rephrased the objection for easy reading

Now why are you here on my talk page, rather than in the Wikidebate itself? Instead, please pose your question there. Then I will respond and give you a demonstration of self-evident axioms in modal logic.

Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I removed the argument you added (and I quoted above) on the assumption that some arguments are so bad/low-quality that they are better removed than responded to. Which these are is open to debate, though.

I started a discussion on your talk page since I suspected a low-quality interaction, and did not want to drown other locations in it.

I will see what else I have to say here. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Babel

Would consider adding Babel to your user page? It is not mandatory, just useful. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Alleged nominalist fallacy

About your argument, which I previously removed and which you reinstated in this edit:

"The proposition commits the w:nominalist fallacy by assuming that the earth (geo) that we measure (meter), exists merely because the geometers said so. See the objection to the first argument pro."

This argument is presented as a con/argument against the motion that "Axioms are definitions in disguise?". I do not understand your argument at all. Can you elaborate? Are you suggesting that the Earth and our measurements do not exist? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Page move

FYI, I moved a page you created to User:Jaredscribe/Foreign policy from Obama to Trump, for reasons stated in the move summary. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Another: User:Jaredscribe/Destruction of Israel in Iranian Policy. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)