Talk:Rigour

message: This article is biased in favor of rigor. It assumes that rigor is good as opposed to an often unnecessary straightjacket and associates it with concepts like intellectual honesty. This article is prejudiced against "nonrigorous" forms of thinking. Critical
:No, I don't think so. There are qualifications throughout. I shall remove the tag. Charles Matthews 08:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem a tad biased to me, though perhaps this is inevitable, as some of the principles involved are widely seen as virtues. In any case, in order to make it more neutral, material would have to be researched and citations gathered to adequately represent opposing points of view. Jergas (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: rigor bias

message: For the record, the user  Critical ( talk,  contributions), who slapped the "disputed NPoV" sticker on this page, has made his or her first edits tonight (or today) and within less than two hours has attacked eight articles for PoV, including (ironically given the CStar example given on the Logical fallacy talk page), Physical law.  These were the only "edits" (plus weak justifications on talk pages in the same vein as this one).  I don't think the PoV claim has merit.  We may ask if this series of attacks is to be taken seriously.
For the following reasons I am thinking that these pages has been the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll and the PoV sticker should be removed sooner rather than later, if not immediately.  We may note that  CStar ( talk,  contributions) after making edits, paused during the period user Critical made edits, and then CStar took up responding to these edits after the series of user Critical edits ends, as if there is only one user involved, and the user logged out, changed cookies and logged back in.  Further, user CStar left a note on  Charles Matthew's talk page,  Chalst's talk page, and   Angela's talk page pointing to a supposed PoV accusation placed on the Logical argument page, when in fact no such sticker has been placed.  Perhaps the irony regarding the Physical law page is not so ironic. Hu 05:18, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
:: I've responded to this in various user talk pages, but most extensively in the logical fallacy talk page. Thanks! CSTAR 17:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have responded to this on the logical fallacy talk page, as well as on the pages of the above mentioned users.  It does appear that these pages were as Hu suggests the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll.  But I wasn't the perpetrator.  This suggestion appears to have been an honest mistake, I consider the matter closed, and it appears that Hu does as well. CSTAR 01:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: About Users Critical and CStar

message: "on the grounds that we, none of us, can entirely master our own presuppositions"
This is an overly broad declaration.  While probably accurate, it lacks the rigour necessary for a blanket statement. ;)  I'd modify it with an appended "presummably" or somesuch. --24.22.227.53 04:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, OK. ...on the grounds ... seems to me a reasonable way to introduce an abbreviated argument; obviously the point can be expanded (more or less ad lib). Charles Matthews 08:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On presuppositions 

message: "Mathematical rigour is often cited as a kind of gold standard for mathematical proof."
This is not a definition. --Jtir 10:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't. It's a remark. Charles Matthews 13:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Mathematical rigour? 

message: I removed the medical section since it has its own article and is conceptually unrelated to intellectual and medical rigour.  I also put in some more section breaks, and hopefully we can find some references.  --SilverStar 04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Hi,
The term 'Rigour' as in to be rigorous with methodology and the medical term 'Rigor' need to be disambiguated.
Typing 'Rigor', the correct spelling of the medical terminology, directs the search to this page, the page for 'Rigour/Rigor'. Therefore I suggest a page to disambiguate the two terms.
I cannot find any info on creating a disambiguation page so I have left this message for a more experienced user to implement the change.
--Mad macs 15:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation Required Between terms 'Rigor' and 'Rigour/Rigor' 

message: "With the aid of computers, it is possible to check proofs mechanically by throwing the possible flaws back onto machine errors that are considered unlikely events.[3]" What does this even mean? I am a computer science major and this seems completely random to me. The reference is to an article that mentions that very rarely RAM has an error (which is then likely caught by the hardware / os). This is certainly NOT something that someone using a computer to check proofs would be thinking about. There is a lot of quality to be said about this, but the above is drivel. What about machine programs to check sentential calculus theorems? What about programs designed to derive geometric proofs from axioms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.112.230.151 (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other places on the site where automated proof is discussed. Rigour is an in-principle thing, surely. By the way, saying things like "drivel" is against basic conventions of discussion here. Charles Matthews 09:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardware error is not supposed to be involved in mechanical proof checking!  I cleaned up the text to quit misleading the reader. — DAGwyn 71.121.204.138 (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this even mean? 

message: Why does this redirect here, when there is no discussion of the term? It's more specific than "intellectual rigor" and deserves a separate treatment. --Belg4mit 02:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add something, then. Charles Matthews 09:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific rigor 

message: The software section should be on its own page. Charles Matthews 09:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Software

message: This sentence is long, unwieldy, and opinionated: "Formal codification of mathematical theories (as one would ideally expect of any mathematically rigorous technique or pedagogy) will reduce both the scope for misinterpretation of mathematical results (by enabling their precise communication) and will eliminate ambiguity in the description of mathematical material (words cannot be reasonably used to describe complex mathematics arguments – though formal languages, set theories and mathematical symbolism can and do)." The whole section on mathematical rigor needs some cleanup. Triathematician (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and made some changes. I tried to simplify what was there and balance the arguments for/against complete mathematical formality. Triathematician (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion in mathematical rigor 

message: Also, I did a google search for the the text, "Hardware memory errors are caused by high-energy radiation from outer space, and can generally be expected to affect one bit of data per month, per gigabyte of DRAM" and could not find anything with that title. I'm assuming from the context the article would argue that the phenomenon described relates back to the idea of "rigorous proofs"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddhaBubba (talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The link to reference 4 is broken