tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post3724249451001762136..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: De dicto in WikipediaEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-35436839226208816752012-02-20T15:52:37.411+00:002012-02-20T15:52:37.411+00:00The basic logic is entirely encapsulated within &q...The basic logic is entirely encapsulated within "The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the average surface temperature is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism".<br /><br />Which can be stated more briefly as "the surface is heated by the sun and the sky".<br /><br />I don't know what component you think is missing.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-41941808161063469112012-02-20T14:59:05.912+00:002012-02-20T14:59:05.912+00:00My main criticism was that a key component of the ...My main criticism was that a key component of the logic was missing. No?Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-1437723054132240712012-02-20T14:56:45.689+00:002012-02-20T14:56:45.689+00:00Oh. That isn't very good, I think.
You compla...Oh. That isn't very good, I think.<br /><br />You complain that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect is OK, but not detailed enough. Then you complain that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model has too much maths.<br /><br />That won't do. The first para of GE has already said all the simple stuff that can be said in words; IGM needs to do the maths to go any further.<br /><br />If you want more than is outlined in the para on "Basic mechanism" then you can't avoid the maths, or indeed the models. It all gets much harder from that point in.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-73724891983348306812012-02-20T13:15:04.970+00:002012-02-20T13:15:04.970+00:00Search on global warming, which includes posts suc...Search on global warming, which includes posts such as <a href="http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/07/global-warming-2-for-details-read.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-14110334333506736622012-02-20T12:51:14.367+00:002012-02-20T12:51:14.367+00:00> as I argued in earlier posts.
Argue, or asse...> as I argued in earlier posts.<br /><br />Argue, or assert? I can't recall any critical analysis of any of the GW pages here.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-55251821404256991482012-02-20T10:11:31.623+00:002012-02-20T10:11:31.623+00:00>>should you just be a poor emulation of tha...>>should you just be a poor emulation of that source, or should you try to be different <br /><<<br /><br />It depends on the target audience. I think the SEP is poor at explaining elementary philosophical ideas to a target audience such as the 'mass market' Wikipedia. <br /><br />I would have the same criticism of the GW articles on WP. Not explained carefully or clearly enough, as I argued in earlier posts.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-9050222523643543482012-02-20T09:59:32.645+00:002012-02-20T09:59:32.645+00:00> See e.g. the more useful SEP article on this....> See e.g. the more useful SEP article on this.<br /><br />This is a problem, and you see the same problem with the climate pages: that when there is an outside high-quality source (for climate, the IPCC) then wiki is in an awkward position: should you just import that source (you can't, and it would be dull), should you just be a poor emulation of that source, or should you try to be different / better?<br /><br />As for SEP I'm not impressed by their "The two phrases, “morning star” and “evening star” may designate the same object, but they do not have the same meaning".<br /><br />Its an excellent example, but their discussion of it is very poor. Yes, it refers to the same object, but in different contexts. Its almost as if they don't actually know how to do the astronomy bit.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-23453566101873891392012-02-19T16:24:40.683+00:002012-02-19T16:24:40.683+00:00>>Where can we find your article on the topi...>>Where can we find your article on the topic?<br /><br />Give me a chance, haven't written it yet :(Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-61070132779468263462012-02-19T15:55:33.699+00:002012-02-19T15:55:33.699+00:00Where can we find your article on the topic?Where can we find your article on the topic?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.com