Talk:Ignoramus et ignorabimus

message: "In mathematics there is no ignorabimus." D. Hilbert, 'Mathematical Problems: Lecture Delivered before the International Congress of Mathematicians at Paris in 1900', bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 8 (1902) p437-79 (445)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.233.9 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin of Hilberts position 

message: Why is there a link to hubris? If no reason, can it be removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.53.23 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubris in links 

message: Was Hilbert responding to Emil or to his brother Paul du Bois-Reymond?  Tkuvho (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  du Bois-Reymond 

message: I'm not too good with Wikipedia, so please consider the following:
1. Emil du Bois-Reymond ended "The Limits of Science" (1872) with the single word "Ignorabimus" (not "Ignoramus et Ignorabimus").
2. He revised his position at the end of "The Seven World Riddles" (1880) with the single word "Dubitemus" (not "Ignoramus et Ignorabimus").
3. This statement in the article is questionable: "However, depending on the interpretation of "ultimate nature" and "origin," it is possible to consider some of these as partially or completely solved. For example, the sensory systems for the traditional senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch) are now mostly understood, including some of the associated neural processing." Du Bois-Reymond was referring to what we would call qualia, and as far as I know, they have not been explained scientifically.
4. While I agree with the article that Gödel refuted Hilbert, mathematicians and philosophers continue to argue over what conclusions can be drawn from Gödel's proof. This should be mentioned if not discussed.
5. Relevant philosophical literature should be mentioned:
McCarty, David C. “Problems and Riddles: Hilbert and the Du Bois-Reymonds.” Synthese 147.1 (October 2005): 63-79.
Tennant, Neil. “Mind, Mathematics and the Ignorabimusstreit.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 15.4 (November 2007): 745-773.
My own biography of EdBR will be coming out from MIT Press in October 2013.
Thanks.
—Gabriel Finkelstein  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.144.177 (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in the article 

message: The article is SO convinced of its point of view (P.O.V. — forbidden to characterize Wikipedia articles, by the way) that the claim of Emil du Bois-Reymond of "Ignoramus et ignorabimus" that it completely avoids elaborating on the extremely vague and scant information in the introductory section. Instead this article immediately presents Hilbert's words of rebuttal.
This colossally bad article rebuts its subject before it is even clear what subject is being rebutted.
Furthermore, there are some extremely solid philosophical arguments in favor of much of what du Bois-Reymond claimed.  But no attempt whatsoever is given to even mention what these might be.
Also, no attempt is even given to support David Hilbert's famous rebuttal, except with the brief quote attributed to him.  These words in no way constitute any kind of argument.
As I said, this is a very poor article.Daqu (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely serious problem with this article.