Talk:How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

message: The "how many angels?" question is a strange title for this article. Shouldn't the title be How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?? AJD 18:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pin? Needle? Anyway, the title shouldn't imply that the article is trying to give the answer. Charles Matthews 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pin. There are 70 times as many Google hits for "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" as for "How many angels can dance on the point of a needle". And having the full question as the title doesn't imply that the article would be trying to give the answer, any more than the article Where's the beef? is trying to give the answer to that question. It's just that the name of the article should be the clear name by which the topic is best known, and that's "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", not "The 'how many angels?' question". AJD 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind if you move it and fix the double redirects. Charles Matthews 20:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. AJD 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: "an example of an ontological argument - one which cannot be proven, as it has no basis in scientific fact."  'ontological' means 'having to do with being', not 'one which cannot be proven'.  The argument about angels and pins is not ontological in the proper meaning of the word, nor is it 'one which cannot be proven as it has no basis in scientific fact' as it can be reasonably discussed if you have definitions of angels and pins that are relevant.  Incidentally, that is quite a tendentious statement - 'cannot be proven as it has no basis in scientific fact'.  Is math scientific?  if so, even imaginary numbers?  Is all of philosophy other than pure materialism 'unprovable'? I suggest this article be reviewed by whoever the philosophy experts are at Wikipedia.  Richardson mcphillips1 04:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not ontological, and that's not what ontological means 

message: This is one of my favorite questions because the answer is so simple and so apparent. The answer is "None." The reason is that the "Pin" does not exist, as earthly things are temporary and "heavenly" things are eternal. The angels exist, the pin does not. "None." 
Master Redyva 15:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Temporary doesn't mean non-existent though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the answer is "none," because while pins indisputably exist, angels do not. If you were to argue that pins did not exist either, then all answers would be vacuously true. 129.22.209.113 (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel I must correct you: it is sufficient for only angels not to exist to make the statement vacuously true for any number of (non-existent) angels, including 0, -2.5, 3+4i, and all infinities. AlexFekken (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Answer 

message: The "correct answer" to the question, according to the novel is one. 
Should this be apart of the article? If so, should it be listed as or under "Uses in popular culture?" Master Redyva 18:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Good Omens]] 

message: "The question how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? has been used many times as a trite dismissal of medieval angelology in particular, of scholasticism in general, and of particular figures such as Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas." How is this done? Why do peopel use this argument? This article just confused me and provided little useful information, although the history of the question is probably worth discussing. 82.4.87.177 (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is a strawman or parody argument of medieval theological argument, which often focused on inane and pointless questions. The idea is that these theologians argued about questions as stupid as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" In reality, that question was probably concocted later. The article makes this pretty clear and it gives several references for the actual origin being later than the attributed origin. 129.22.209.113 (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: The article provides some hints that this question has a history but, as a reader, the history is what I came here to find and I didn't find it.  I am not a "history of philosophy" expert but I know that the question reaches into Leibniz's Dynamism_(metaphysics) in its reaction against Mechanism_(philosophy). Bmarmie (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a question with a historical context

message: I was under the impression the question was related to OR ended up being related to discussions about the nature of infinity, and the difference between countable and uncountable infinities.  Alas, I have no sources at present time, but the article does feel somewhat woefully incomplete. --68.255.106.32 (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to mathematics?

message: , Springer does connect both topics. Also National Journal, Volume 28, Page 25, "Imposing copyright law as it exists to the distribution of copies over the Net... To the non-Internet-sawy, this debate may sound like the argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.", and  Rutgers computer & technology law journal - Volume 20, p.110 "... of not only how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but what dance it is they are doing and who owns the copyright." Diego (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it should go in one or both of these articles - not merely in a see also link, since the connection needs to be demonstrated. StAnselm (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The connection would be undue weight at the copyright article. This doesn't mean that the link should be removed - the connection can be demonstrated with the link itself, there's no requirement in the style guidelines that the target article covers it. We don't mention the "How many angels..." question at Argumentation theory, Balloon debate nor Discourse articles either. Diego (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312141740/http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/articles/angels.html to http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/articles/angels.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is a purely scholastic challenge and belongs to the Latin church philosophy of medieval universities (Scholasticism). It has nothing to do with Constantinople and the philosophy of the Greek church. I would remove that statement or extend it to reflect this. N Jordan (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constantinople 

message: "the English divine, William Sclater"
What is an English divine? Not referenced in the article on Sclater. Not obvious in Google.
:Pretty common expression in English (not American) writing. A "divine" is a minister. IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "English divine"?