Talk:Thought experiment

message: what about einstein????
:Indeed, what about Einstein? 
:In fact, three of Einstein's most famous thought experiments, the EPR paradox, galileo's ship and the twin paradox are in the list.  There are many many more relativity-related thought experiments (riding in a relativistic elevator with a flashlight and a mirror for instance), and you should feel free to write those up and include them if you think they're noteworthy enough. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Einstein was probably the greatest thought experimenter of all time. Aside from the three noted above, he pioneered a lot more, such as a train being hit by lightning, flying ladders and so on. I'm actually kind of surprised that the Twin paradox isn't listed as a thought experiment.
67.201.192.140 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  einstein 

message: This is just crying out for a link "but others pre-date Socrates." If you know this to be a fact then you should know enough to create another page informing readers what these other old thought experiments were and link to it.
One reference is:
Rescher, N., "Thought Experiment in Pre-Socratic Philosophy", pp.31-41 in Horowitz, T. & Massey, G.J. (eds.), Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy, Rowman & Littlefield, (Savage), 1991.cogtrue 22:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a link 

message: There are two interesting lists of the functions and goals of thought experiments.  Here are some thoughts.  (1) I don't know what the difference is between functions and goals.  I think they are essentially the same teleological concepts, and the items on the lists seem to have the same "function."  (2) The list seems a bit long for a general encyclopedia entry.  Can some be sacrificed or consolidated?
(Rldoan 07:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  function and goal of thought experiments 

message: A gratuitious comment.  This is great stuff!  Very useful information!
(Rldoan 08:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  types of hypothetical question 

message: The section that lists seven types of thought experiments had said that these are the seven types of thought experiments in general.  This is simply not true.  The seven types of thought experiments listed concern causal reasoning.  Thought experiments in philosophy (typically) are not concerned with causal reasoning.  I changed the category title and discussion to reflect this limitation.  If someone with a physics orientation wants to change some of the language to better reflect conventional vocabulary, that's fine.  But the seven types are not inclusive of all thought experiments (as the term "thought experiment" is currently used). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rldoan (talk • contribs) 09:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thought experiments involving causal reasoning 

message: There is still much debate whether Chalmers experiment should be seen as metaphysically possible. However, I think an addition should be made to address the difference between metaphysically possible and logically possible. The paragraph suggests that Chalmers experiment is also debated as logically possible. Please add some references for this claim or make a clear distinction between metaphysically possible and logically possible.
62.177.201.147 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical possibility  

message: Casimir cones listed here as a thought experiment is probably a hoax. Any thoughts? Dauto (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the wikilink links to an article that is AfD I would concur. I will remove it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  hoax? 

message: … is written as one word, even in English. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gedankenexperiment --77.186.138.131 (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gedankenexperiment 

message: Whya are zeno's paradoxes in the philisophical cat they seem more physical to me.  Stupidstudent (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeno 

message: There is a longish section on EPR with stuff like Bohr won the argument by strength of personality.... This reads very oddly, like someone's anti-Bohr tirade. I don't think it really belongs. Bohr was indeed right, and Einstein wrong, and the thought experiment itself was valuable. But all the authority-people stuff should go William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Objectionable material removed.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is how it was sourced. "Bohr won the argument by strength of personality".  Sounds familiar to me here. Opinions removing sourced material. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPR 

message: Undid this one , the remover opinions don't match the relevant and verified text. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought experiments are valuable, but we do not help anybody by privileging the incorrect views of one philosopher. It is not true that TE underlie all modern physics, or at least it isn't true that this is unquestionably true. You could equally well assert that careful observation underlies all modern physics. The quote I removed is simply unhelpful William M. Connolley (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Even if we would include this view, we certainly cannot say: "As the contemporary philosopher Martin Cohen puts it, ...". We should rather say: "The contemporary philosopher Martin Cohen puts that ...". The as-phrase suggests that Wikipedia endorses this view. DVdm (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Is there a source for this statement "It is not true" it's a compelling issue for inclusion that is fairly attributed and could be balanced with additional sources. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  See WP:UNDUE William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok again, where (what source) is the counter weight originating from? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Any physics text. jps (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undo 

message: I removed mention of the Ancient Greek term deiknymi from the first sentence, and along with it the reference 
*Szábo, À. (1958) " 'Deiknymi' als Mathematischer Terminus fur 'Beweisen' ", Maia N.S. 10 pp.1-26 as cited by Imre Lakatos (1976) in Proofs and Refutations p.9. (John Worrall and Elie Zahar, eds.) Cambridge University Press 
It's not clear that the word for "thought experiment" in ancient Greek is sufficiently relevant to appear in the crucial first sentence of the article. If the Ancient Greek word is relevant, I suggest discussing it in the section Thought experiment#Origins and use of the literal term, rather than in the introduction. By policy, Wikipedia articles are about things, not about the words that describe them. --Srleffler (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since a talk entry was duplicate I removed it. Lakatos identified the importance of deiknymi (that is, thought-experiment) in his Proofs and Refutations and showed how the Greeks treated theorem / proof as quasi-experiment. This fits in neatly with the Aristotelian habit of letting imagination trump experience. Thus Galileo's actual experiments showed their superiority over Aristotle's deiknymi.  --Ancheta Wis (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ancheta Wis, you can safely sneer at Aristotle; he isn't about to reply.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You can thank Galileo for the critique: Salviati speaks: "I greatly doubt that Aristotle ever tested by experiment whether it be true that two stones, one weighing ten times as much as the other, if allowed to fall, at the same instant, from a height of, say, 100 cubits, would so differ in speed that when the heavier had reached the ground, the other would not have fallen more than 10 cubits." Two New Sciences (1638) —. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, you can safely pass on the blame for the sneer onto Galileo, or perhaps even onto Salviati.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

text: As far as δείκνυμι goes, the translation as 'thought experiment' itself doesn't seem obvious to me. In general contexts, the word means 'to show' or 'to point': maybe 'demonstration' would be a less question-begging way to translate the word here. I dont have Proofs and Refutations to hand, though, or know anything myself about the ways in which the word was used in ancient Greek argument. Dsp13 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Lakatos cites Szábo, so you might also want to access Szábo's thoughts on this. Here is an article about this, by András Máté, whom I quote: "8. Deiknymi(Gr.): the first and basic meaning of this word in everyday language is to show, but it has also the following meanings: to point out, explain, prove, to make the truth/falsity of a mathematical statement visible in some way, to reflect on it, and draw the correct conclusion from it. Szabó summarizes the core of the early Greek notion of proof on this way : “It is reflection which transforms what we see, into visible, empirical evidence” (Szabó 1969, p. 251/1978, p. 190)" --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't the article at least point out that δείκνυμι is a verb, not a noun? As a verb, it can't possible mean "thought experiment." Julianpetri (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It must have the sense of a non-finite verb, or gerund, in that case. 'Proof', 'reflection', and 'experiment' are all non-finite verbs, which can be used as another part of speech.That is definitely the sense as it is taken by Szábo. I encourage you to look at András Máté's article, which is linked above. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deiknymi 

message: This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.
Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed. 
I searched the page history, and found 8 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edit). Tobby72 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your note. The Avicenna example you contributed is independently corroborated. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuse of sources

message: This is an important and valuable article but regrettably at present it seems to be itself in parts a thought experiment - ie what if the WP:NOR rule did not exist ...
And where's Descartes' evil demon, or Newton's apple tree? Straw Cat (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of sources

message: Please separate your contributions when replying to other editors.  It is customary to indent your replies to others. Otherwise, please append your contribution to the end of the pertinent section of the talk page. That way, others can read the section in chronological order. You can add your signature and a timestamp, with 4 tildes, thus: ~~~~. Otherwise, you may be mixing your contributions with others. If you are replying, you can address the other editor by their signature. Thank you, --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 17:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please indent new contributions when replying